!CD!CD Hbttttmttg 0f

CD

CO

;KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK ANDLATIN LITERATURE

A DISSER

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ATS AND LT

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK

BY

ELIZA GREGORY WILKINS

Private Edition, Distributed By

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

1917

-fitttoratg of

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK ANDLATIN LITERATURE

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK

BY

ELIZA GREGORY WILKINS

Private Edition, Distributed By

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

1917

I

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANYMENASHA, WISCONSIN

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

PAGEINTRODUCTION

The inscriptions at Delphi their number, authorship, date, etc. Dis-

cussions of yv&Qi ffavrdv in antiquity. Importance attached to yv&di aavrbv bythe Ancients 1

CHAPTER II

TNflei SATTON As KNOW YOUR MEASURE

Earliest apparent reference to the maxim, in Heracleitus. Aeschylus'use of the apophthegm. Interpretation of Pindar, Pythian II, 34. Tv&St. aavrbv

as' Know your Measure' in Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle. Historical charac-

ters who did not know themselves Alcibiades and Alexander. The above

meaning for the maxim in Cicero and Juvenal. Significance of title of chapters21 and 22 of Stobaeus' Florilegium 12

OL[AFTER III

SATTON As KNOW WHAT You CAN AND CANNOT DoAs an injunction not to over-estimate one's ability. As an injunction not

to under-estimate one's ability. As an injunction to know one's special bent.

As an injunction to know what one can do in the realm of Will 23

CHAPTER IV

SATTON As KNOW YOUR PLACE. ITS RELATION To S12<i>POSTNH

vavrdv apparently a current definition of auxppoavvi}. Connection of

the two in Aristotle's Ethics. Common use of the maxim in this sense. Con-

nection between yv&0i aavrov and the etymological meaning of <ru<ppovt. in Plato's

Timaeus. The phrase TO byvodv kavrbv used of mental derangement as well

as by way of suggestion of yv&6i aavrdv. The blending of the two meanings of

r6 &yvoii> kavrbv in Xenophon's Memorabilia. The later tendency to make

yv&dt, <ravr6i> include other virtues as well as <rco(f>poavvij 33

CHAPTER V

FNflei SATTON As KNOW THE LIMITS OF YOUR WISDOM

Socrates' life-long search after self-knowledge. The false conceit of knowl-

edge a universal fault. The use of yv&di vavrov in the above sense by Xenophon,.

Aristophanes, and Isocrates. Later uses of the maxim with this connotation..

4L

CHAPTER VI

TNfiei SATTON As KNOW YOUR OWN FAULTS

This use of the maxim as applied to the individual, irrespective of others.

Man's proneness to see others' faults rather than his own. The fable of the

two sacks brought into connection with yv&di aavrbv 46

CHAPTER VII

SATTON As KNOW You ARE HUMAN AND MORTAL

PAGE

The injunction to think mortal thoughts a common-place of Greek litera-

ture. Instances of the use of ^v&Bi aavrbv in this sense ....................................52

CHAPTER VIII

SATTON As KNOW YOUR OWN SOUL

The soul the real self, as discussed in Alcibiades I. The antithesis between

soul and body led to an emphasis upon the knowledge of each separately, and

upon a knowledge of the relation between them. Since the soul is the man,yv&di cravrbv means to know man, and hence to be a philosopher. Resultant

tendency of the Stoics to centre all their philosophy around yvu>6t aavrov. TheNeo-Platonists' application of the maxim to a knowledge of the psychological

divisions of the soul. Its connection with the idea of self-consciousness. Its

relation to certain of the soul's1

activities ..................................................................60

CHAPTER IX

TNftOI SATTON Is DIFFICULT. How ATTAINED?

"rv<30i aavrbv is difficult" an old saying. Difficulty of knowing self versus

knowing others. Self-knowledge limited to the philosophers. Perfect self-

knowledge unattainable. Means to self-knowledge suggested by various writers

through dialectic, through a friend, through theatrical performances, through

literature, through a knowledge of the Universe, through a knowledge of God.

..................................................................................................................................................78

CHAPTER XTN120I SATTON IN EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE

The maxim asserted to have been borrowed by the Greeks from Hebrewwriters. Ecclesiastical discussions of self-knowledge reflect various Stoic appli-

cations of yv&Qi aavrov, and the influence of Plato and the Neo-Platonists. Self-

knowledge of the Angels, the Trinity, etc. Self-knowledge a necessary help

toward a knowledge of God. Doctrines related to yv&Oi cravrov by the Church

Fathers distinctively self-knowledge as a realization that God created manin His own image; self-knowledge as a recognition of man's sinfulness and need

of repentance; self-knowledge as including a belief in man's immortality ..........89

LIST OF PASSAGES IN WHICH THE MAXIM Is EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED ...... 100

PREFACE

The Delphic maxim "Know Thyself" has occurred so frequentlyin the literature of every age from the fifth century B. C. down to

our own day that it may seem at first thought too well-worn a themefor fresh discussion. But modern use of it, whether in the title of

a book or a play, or in the incidental pointing of a moral in some

literary work, takes little account, as a rule, of its ancient con-

notation; and no systematic attempt has been made hitherto to

discover its meanings for the Greeks themselves. It has been the

aim of this study to determine the sense in which the Ancients in-

terpreted the maxim, by collecting the instances of its actual or

implied presence in the extant writings of the Greeks and Romansdown to about 500 A. D. It is possible that in covering so exten-

sive a field some more or less important passages may have been over-

looked, but they would probably not affect the categories indicated.

It is with sincere gratitude that I here acknowledge my indebted-

ness to Professor Paul Shorey of the University of Chicago for the

subject of this investigation, and for many an illuminating sug-

gestion during the progress of the work.

ELIZA GREGORY WILKINS.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

When Socrates in Plato's Protagoras*- is discussing certain verses

of Simonides which refer to an apophthegm of Pittacus Xa\e7r6*> tvB^bv

ewevai, he explains that this is one of the numerous examples of the

Old-time Wisdom, an instance of Laconian (3paxv\oyia, and he turns

by way of illustration to the inscriptions at Delphi. "Thales the

Milesian," he says, "and Pittacus the Mitylenian, and Bias the

Prienian, and our Solon, and Cleobulus the Lindian, and Mysonthe Chenian, and the seventh Lacedaemonian Chilon . . . met

together and dedicated the first-fruits of wisdom to Apollo at the

temple at Delphi, writing these sayings which are on everybody's

tongue, IVco0t (roLvrbv and MrjStp 0,7ew." While this passage raises

no questions regarding the interpretation of yv&Bi (TCLVTOV, it mayserve as a fitting introduction to a consideration of the Delphic

inscriptions in general their number, their authorship, and their

exact location on the temple. Besides the two given above we know

positively of three others the '771^77, Trdpa 5' arrj, mentioned byPlato in the Charmides,

2by Diogenes Laertius3 and others; Geo) rjpa,

cited by Varro,4 and perhaps reflected in the "sequi deum" of Cic-

ero's De Finibus 111:22; and a large E, known to us chiefly throughPlutarch's treatise entitled De E apud Delphos. The scholiasts on

Lucian5 and on Dio Chrysostom6give seven inscriptions, attributing

one to each of the Seven Sages, and there is a manuscript7 in the

Laurentian Library at Florence containing ninety-two sayings,

which bears the title Maxims of the Seven Sages Which Were Found

Carved on the Pillar at Delphi.* The late scholiasts on Lucian and

Dio Chrysostom, however, are hardly to be relied upon,9 and the

1 343 A-B.2 165 A.

I, 3, 6&IX, 11,8.

Sat. Menip. XXIX, 16. Ed. Reise p. 130.

6 On Phalar. I, 7.

8 Quoted by Schultz in Philologus XXIV, p. 203, n. 62.

7Philologus XXIV, p. 215.

8 T&V eiTTa ffo<f>u>i> TrapaTyeX/iCtTa SLTIVO. evpWrjcrav KKO\a,Hfj,kva kiri rov kv AeX^ois Klovos.

See Philologus XXIV, p. 193 and pp. 215 ff. Mullach. Frag. Phil. Graec. Vol. I,

p. 212 ff. brings together the apophthegms which ancient writers attributed to

the Seven Wise Men severally and collectively.9Philologus XXIV, p. 203.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

compiler of the TlapayyeX^aTa of the Wise Men was undoubtedlyconfused10 in assigning to Delphi so many sayings which are no-

where else mentioned as belonging there. So, too, according to

Photius and Suidas, some people classed another proverb the TT\V

Kara aavrov cXa as a UvdiKov airorfeyna, and with like error.

Modern discussion of the inscriptions at Delphi is concerned

chiefly with the meaning of the E and with the arrangement of the

sayings, certain scholars holding conservatively to the five known

surely to have been there, and others seeking to find trace of enoughmore to make possible an arrangement in hexameters. The meaningof the letter E was evidently not clear to the men of later antiquity,

as Plutarch's treatise shows. He gives in the main five possible

explanations, two based on the supposition that the E is a real E,

the fifth letter of the alphabet, and three on the -supposition that

it represents the diphthong El. If the E is a simple E, he suggests

that there were originally five Sages instead of seven and that this

fifth letter registered a protest against the claims of the other two;11

or again, that the E may have the mystical meanings connected

with the number five.12 If the letter represents the diphthong, he

fancies that it may be the conjunction et13 used in asking questions

of the God if one should marry, if one should go on a voyage,

and the like; or the argumentative if,u honored by a God who fav-

ored logic; or, further, that it may be the second person singular

of the verb etjiu15 and mean "Thou art" the worshipper's recognition

of the fact that God alone possesses true Being. This treatise of

Plutarch's is the only ancient discussion of the E in our extant

literature, and almost the only allusion to it,16 but the letter occurs

on the recently discovered omphalos,17 and also on some coins of the

time of Hadrian which represent the temple front.18

10 Ibid. p. 217.11

c. 3.

12C. 7 &8. Cf. Athenaeus 453D <dX<pa>, ^ra, ya^a, SeXra, GeoO y&p el,

TJT', fro.. . . .

13c. 5.

14c. 6.

16c. 17.

16 Plut. De def. orac. 31, and a frag, of a Lexicon (See Bursian Geog. I, 175,

note 5) refer to the E.17 See Year's Work in Classical Studies for 1915, pp. 73-74.

18 Frazer on Pausanias X, 19, 4, Vol. V, p. 340. Also Hermes XXXVI, p.

476.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 3

Among the first of modern scholars to concern himself with the

inscriptions was Goettling. He accepts Plutarch's last suggestionthat the E represents the verb form el, but he thinks it was addressed

not to the God but to the worshipper, and renders it: "Du hast

als geschaffenes, vernunftiges Wesen ein Selbst bewusstsein, bist

Mensch. " 19 Schultz interprets it similarly, but Roscher, in anarticle published in 1900, suggests a different explanation. He thinks

that the E is the diphthong et, but he regards it as an imperative form,like the other Delphic inscriptions, and belonging rather to the verb

et/u a form found in compounds,20

and, according to his view, oc-

curring as a simple verb in Homer. 21 This he translates not "go"but "come," and says that it is a word of welcome and assurance

to the trembling worshipper. Still another view has been promul-

gated by Lagercrantz, who thinks that the E represents an rj and

means "He said." He thus regards it not as one of the Spriiche,

but as the verb which introduces them, with Apollo understood as

subject.

Goettling and Roscher have both been interested in arrangingthese inscriptions in verse form, and they have had no difficulty in

making an hexameter of

Tv&Qi (ravTOV, WLvjdev ayav, '7760, wapa 6' a/ny,

by treating the u and a in '77601 as a case of synezesis.22 Then

Goettling, on the supposition that there were seven23Spriiche, at-

tempted to fill out the first line by using the word /c6/u"e and a phrasewhich Suidas and the Paroemiograph connect with TV&&L awrbv

as IlapayyeKfjLara HvBiKa, and he produced the following:24

ct. 0ey rjpa. <KO/U"> irapal TO vby.ivpa. xapaoi>.

The Ko/ufe Goettling renders "sei hilfreich" and thinks we would

naturally consider our relation to men after honoring God.25 The

irapal TO p6/u0yza xapaoi> he takes with the Qe$ ypa to mean "der

19Abhandlungen I, p. 236.

20Philologus LIX, pp. 25-26. ?ei (Clouds 633) irpdaei (Epictet. Enchir. 32, 2).

21 In the phrase el 8' aye, which he would write el, 5' aye.22Abhandlungen I, p. 228.

23Goettling thinks Plato's and Pausanias' statement that the Seven Wise

Men met at Delphi and inscribed the sayings indicates that the sayings were

seven in number, and that perhaps the number of sayings started the tradition

of the Seven Wise Men.24Abhandlungen I, p. 248.

25 Ibid. 244.

Gottheit sollst du dienen, nicht menschlichen Satzungen."26 This

TO vofjLLo-fjLa 7rapaxapaoz>, however, was not a Delphic inscription, as

Suidas says, but it apparently originated in a statement of Dio-

genes the Cynic in the HoSaXos, a lost play attributed to him in ancient

times,27 to the effect that God had bidden him yv&et, crauro^28 and

7rapaxapaoj' TO po/uo-jua.29

Diogenes Laertius says that accordingto a certain story this command was an answer to the Cynic's ques-

tion as to how he could win distinction among men,30 and Julian

likewise treats irapaxapa&v TO vofjuwa not as a maxim but as an

oracle given to Diogenes specifically.31

Roscher in his turn, acting on the supposition that there were

seven Spriiche because of the prevalence of that number in connec-

tion with the Apollo cult,32 filled out the first line with two other

sayings taken from the naptrrxeXjuara Tiv6i,Ka. He makes the verse

read :

33

el. deQ rjpa. VO^OLS ireiBev. (peidev T XP VOL '

He selects the w/iots weWov on account of a passage in Marcus Anto-

ninus34aKO\6v6r](TOJ> 0eo>. e/cet^os \ikv (pr\viv OTL TravTa POJUIOTI . . . and

another in Xenophon's Memorabilia?5 where Apollo when asked

how any one could please the Gods, replies Vo/f> TroXews.' The

<pel8tv XP VOLO he thinks is reflected in the statement in Cicero's De

28 P. 239.27Diogenes Laertius VI, 2, 1 (20). Julian says it is a matter of dispute

whether Diogenes wrote these plays or his disciple Philiscus. Or. VII, 210 C-D.28 We are not told distinctly that yv&6i aavrbv was in the II65aXos, but it

seems the natural way to account for its use in this connection later.

29 For the ambiguous meaning of this phrase see Diog. Laert. VI, II, 1 (20).

He tells us in effect that out of the one meaning a story arose charging Diogenes,

who was the son of a banker, with adulterating the coinage. Its metaphorical

meaning of disdaining custom or convention occurs more frequently, however.

Cf. sec. 71: rotaOra SieXeyero Kal iroi&v epalvero ovrcos po/ua^a irapaxapaTTtav, wdevoOrco rots Kara vb^ov ws TOIS /card <pv<nv SiSous. See also Julian Or. VII, 211 B-C:T6 5e elwfv 6 0eos, ap' 1v\ifv ]

OTL T?)J T>V iro\\>v airw 66^775, kirkra^ev virepopav Kal

irapaxapaTTfLv ov rijv AX^^etai/, dXXd TO ?/6/it(r/za. Suidas' rendering is almost

identical with this. See Gomperz, Grelchische Denker, vol. II, p. 127.

30VI, II, 1. Kal irvvdavb^vov . . . rt iroiijffas evdo^oraros ZVTCII, OVTO) Xa/3ei'

TOP XP'70'M *' TOVTOV.

31VI, 188 A.

32Philologus LX, p. 91, n. 17.

33Philologus LX, p. 90.

34VI, 31.

35IV, 3, 16. Roscher thinks further that the phrase T<$ S vow warkov in

Plato's Apol. 19A has reference to this saying.

"Quaeque sunt vetera praecepta sapientium, qui iubent

tempori parere, et sequi deum, et se noscere et nihil nimis," . . .

though he needs to emend parere to parcere to make good his point.37

In their insistence upon the verse form of the inscriptions Goettlingand Roscher are influenced, of course, by the fact that the Delphicoracles were given in hexameters, and by the presence of such dedica-

tions elsewhere. There was an epigram on the Apollo temple at

Delos, according to Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics38;and at Ephesus,

apparently on the old temple of Artemis, were six words, known as

'Etpeaia ypa^ara, which may be arranged in a perfect hexameter

verse.39 The seven sayings at Delphi Roscher thinks played a r61e

similar to that of the Mosaic Decalogue, and he renders them:40

"Komm und folge dem Gott und Gesetz und nutze die Zeit wohl!

Prufe dich selbst, Halt Mass, und meide gefahrliche Burgschaft."

Roscher's work is certainly ingenious, whether we are disposed to

accept it, or to give our imagination less rein and affirm with Schultz

and Lagercrantz that we have sure evidence for five inscriptions only.

The original authorship of the sayings is an open question nowas of old, for we cannot be sure whether they first appeared on the

temple or whether they were put there after they had become familiar

in current thought. Plato, as we have seen, attributes them to the

Seven Wise Men, but he can hardly have been serious in doing so,

judging from the general tone of that section of the Protagoras.

Plato is the first to tell this story of the meeting of the Seven Sages

at Delphi, and it has been suggested that he was responsible for the

establishment of the canon.41 But the canon was never firmly

fixed. Pausanias42 and Demetrius Phalereus43 follow Plato in their

lists, except for the substitution of Periander of Corinth for the

less known Myson, but Clement of Alexandria mentions several

3III, 22.

37 Cf. Seneca, Ep. 94, 28. Roscher thinks, too, that a parcere legibus mayhave fallen out between tempori and parere.

**Eth.Eudem. 1, 1.

3 Cl. Alex. Strom. V, VIII, 45. See also Philologus LX, p. 89.

40 Phil. LIX, 38.

See p. 3, n. 23.

X,24, 1.

43 Stob. Flor. Ill; 79. It was Demetrius who first distributed the apoph-

thegms among the Sages severally, according to Bohren, De Septem Sapientibus,

p. 5.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

substitutions for Periander,44 and no less than twenty-two names

are accounted among the Seven by different authors.45Diogenes

Laertius attributes Tv&Qi aavrbv to Thales,46

M.r)dtv ajav to Solon,47

and 'E77va, irapa d' &TTJ to Chilon.48 Diodorus Siculus speaks of

Chilon as having written all three.49 Plutarch says the Amphictyonswrote them on the temple.

50 Some ancient writers held the theory,

too, that they were not the words of the Sages, but the utterance

of the priestess51 the view advocated by Roscher. The uncer-

tainty attached to their authorship is well expressed by Porphyry,who sums up the situation with the words: "Whether Phemonoe,

through whom the Pythian God is said to have first distributed

favors to men, uttered this (yv&di (ravrov) ... or Phanothea, the

priestess of Delphi, or whether it was a dedication of Bias or Thales

or Chilon, started by some divine inspiration . . or whether it was

before Chilon . .,as Aristotle says in his work on Philosophy, who-

soever it was . . let the question of its origin lie in dispute."52

We are not only in doubt concerning the original authorship of

the sayings, but we do not know how early they appeared at Delphi.

They must have been on the temple built toward the end of the 6th,

or early in the 5th, century to replace the old stone structure de-

stroyed by fire in 548 B. C.,53 and it is possible, if not probable, that

they were on the earlier temple of stone. 54 Plutarch speaks of the

existence in his day of an old" wooden E," the

"bronze E of the

Athenians," and the"golden E of the impress Livia."55 If the

bronze E was dedicated by the Athenians to adorn the new templewhich the Alcmaeonidae made splendid with its front of Parian

marble,56

it may be that the wooden E was rescued from the fire

of 548 B. C. This new temple built by the Alcmaeonidae was de-

44 Strom. I, 14, 59. See also Diog. Laert. Proem. IX (13).45

Hitzig's Pausanias, vol. Ill, pt. 2, p. 749.46

1, 9, 35.

471, 2, 16. Cf. I, 1, 14.

481, 3, 6.

49IX, 10.

60 De GarruL 17. \51 Cl. Alex. Strom. I, 14, 60 & Diog. Laert. I, 1, 13 (40).52 Stob. Flor. XXI, 26.

63 Herodotus II, 180 & Paus. X, 5, 13.

64 Schultz thinks from the statement by Porphyry that yv&Qi aavrbv at

least was on the stone temple.65 De E apud Delphos, c. 3.

68 Her. V, 62. Cf . Pindar, Pyth. VII.

" KNOW THYSELF "IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 7

stroyed and rebuilt in the 4th century, and the 4th century templeseems to have suffered partial destruction in 84/83 B. C., and againin Nero's time.57

Presumably the sayings were inscribed anew with

each rebuilding, or if they were on tablets, as Goettling and Roscher

think,58 the old ones may have been rescued on some of these occa-

sions. Pliny tells us that the sayings were inscril ed in letters of

gold59 an addition belonging to the Roman Period, doubtless, as

Plutarch says of the golden E.

The exact position of the inscriptions on the temple is variously

given. The scholiast on Plato's Phaedrus60says they were on the

Propylaea. Macrobius in one passage61

places them on the temple

front, and in another62 on the door-post. Pausanias, however,

says they were on the pronaos,63 and Diodorus in speaking of the

three best known to us says they were on a certain column.64 Thecoin referred to above represents the temple as hexastyle, with the

E in the central space, which may or may not be indicative of its

position. Roscher thinks it may have been suspended between the

two columns of the pronaos,65 while the other inscriptions were

written three each on two tablets in boustrophedon fashion and at-

tached to either column. He also conceives the idea of the sayings

being written on six tablets attached to the six columns of the temple

front, with the E on the left central and yv&6i aavrov on the right

central column; but the theory that they were on one or both of the

pillars of the pronaos seems to us more plausible, especially in view

of its support by the earlier of the ancient authorities.

As regards the original meaning of these sayings, we have spoken of

Roscher's suggestion that they may have corresponded in a sense to

the Mosaic Decalogue. In a later article66 he developes the idea that,

originating at Delphi, they all had to do with the temple service.

The E would be the welcome and assurance of the God to the wor-

shipper, and the 6e<3 faa would enjoin upon him to give the God

57 Frazer on Pans. X, 19, 4. vol. V, p. 328 ff.

58Abhandlungen, p. 225.

89 N. H. VII, 32.

60 229E.61 Somn. Scip. I, 9, 2.

62 Sat. I, 6, 6.

63 X, 24, 1.

64IX, 10. Cf. Varro, Sat. Menip. p. 169, ed. Reise.

68 Phil. LX, 96.*

M Phil. LX, 98-100.

8

sacrifice and honor. Tv&Qi (ravrov, he says, was an exhortation to

the worshipper to be clear about himself and what he wanted; the

Mijdlv &yav an exhortation to limit the excessive number of requests

with which many seekers assailed the God; and E77ua, irapa 6' cm?,

which taken independently later came to mean "Give a pledge

(whether of bonds or in betrothal) without great caution, and trouble

awaits you,"67 meant originally "Bringe nur dem Gott dein Geliibde

dar, aber bedenke dabei auch, dass du es eriiillen musst, wenn du

nicht der Gottlichen Strafe oder Rache verfalien willst." This

theory of Roscher's that the sayings originated at Delphi and had

at first only a local application implies that the attributing of them

to the Wise Men was a later tradition arising through their similarity

in form to the general "Wisdom Literature" or Proverbs of the

Greeks. But the ancient theory that they appeared at Delphi

only after they had become current proverbs is at least equally

plausible. We have observed that Plato is the first to refer them

to the Seven Sages,68 but in his time likewise do we find first mention

of their presence on the Delphic temple. Yet they were current

long before Plato, for M.ijdev ajav is quoted by Theognis69 and Pin-

dar,68 and Tv&di (ravTov by the tragic poet Ion,

70 and (with a dif-

ferent form of the verb) by Heracleitus71 and Aeschylus.72

67 See Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Convivium c. 21 (164B) /cat TOVTO 5i) TO TroXXovs

H*v aya/jLovs, iroXXous 5' airiffTOVs, eviovs dc /cat a<p<j)vovs TreTrotij/cos eyyva irapa 8' arrj.

88 A fragment of Pindar (216 ed. Christ) reads:

So^oi 81 /cat TO /jnjSw ayav tiros awr)<rav irepiaffus.

It is possible, of course, that in its context So<pot referred to the Sages, but the

absence of any qualifying word in the fragment and the fact that Pindar some-

times used Sopot of poets leaves the matter in doubt.69 335 & 657.70

Frag. 55. ed. Nauck.71

Frag. 116. Diels.72 Prom. 309. Two scholiasts on Homer see an allusion to yv&di aavrbv in

Iliad 111:53. (Homeri Ilias Scholia vol. Ill ed. Dindorf & V ed. Maass):

yvoirjs x' olov (pojros Xs 0aXepi)j' irapaKOiTLV.

In fact, one of them goes so far as to say: OVK apa XtXcoi/os, o>s uTro^ati/eTat,

86yi*a r6 yvu>6i aavrdv, dXX' 'Owpov. Any such interpretation of the Iliad passage,

however, is wide of the mark. The yvoiys has rather the idiomatic use of ytyvwffKu

found not infrequently in Homer and elsewhere (cf. Plato Rep. 362A, 466C,

569A) in expressing a sort of challenge or threat,' Then you'd find out.

' The

scholiast misses this, and reads into Homer an idea which did not become current

until a later day. This tendency on the part of late writers to refer the Delphic

maxims to Homer appears also in Plutarch's Sept. Sap. Convivium, c. 21 (164 B-C).

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 9

Whatever their origin, these two sayings came to have an im-

mense importance in Greek thought. "Behold how many questions

these inscriptions Tv&Bi aavrdv and Mydev ayav have set afoot amongstthe philosophers,

"says Plutarch, "and what a multitude of discussions

has sprung from each of them as from a seed." 73 And in another

passage he compares them to streams confined in a narrow channel. 74

"One cannot see through their meaning," he adds, "but if youconsider what has been written or said about them by those who

wish to understand what each means, not easily will you find longer

discussions than these." Of such long and multitudinous discus-

sions comparatively few have been left to us, although priSlv ayav

and particularly yv&Oi vavTov are scattered all through our extant

literature, and their mention is often accompanied by some reflec-

tions upon their meaning. The longest surviving work which bears

directly upon the yv&OL (TCLVTOV is the Alcibiades I. ascribed to Plato,

though conceded by many scholars to be of doubtful authenticity.75

The Neo-Platonist commentators upon the dialogue have much

to say about the maxim itself, and there are discussions of shorter

length to be found elsewhere in Plato, in Xenophon, Dio Chrysostom,

Epictetus, Cicero, Plutarch, Julian, and a great many other writers.

But Aristotle's fullest treatment of the apophthegm was apparently

Kal 6 "AtcrwTTos OTO.V ye iraly irpos c/j.e Xepcrtas, elire, <rirovdafav 8k TOVTUV"

tvperriv airo8dKvv<ri /cat y^cu TOV p.kv "E/cTopa yiyvoxrKetv kavTbv (See p. 26)

TOJ> d' 'Q8v<r<rea TOV nrjotv ayav kTfo.ivkrt\v. . . .

73 E apud Delphos c. 2.

74 De Pythiae Oraculis 29. TO Tv&Qi aavTbv /cat TO MrjSlv ayav

Kal ra Toiauro fjiev &Tro<p6eyiJiaTa T&V ao<p&v TO.VTO Tols tis aTtvbv

febnafftv ... Cf. Seneca Ep. Mor.94,28: "Praeterea ipsaquae praecipiuntur, per

se multum habeant ponderis, utique si aut carmini intexta sunt aut prosa ora-

tione in sententja coartata. . . . Qualia sunt ilia aut reddita oraculo aut simi-

lia: Tempori parce, Te nosce." The Ancients greatly admired the conciseness of

expression the Laconic brevity of these maxims. See Plato's Protagoras

343B and Plutarch De Garrulitate 17 davfiatovTai 5c /ecu TOJJ/ Tra\aiMv ol ppaxv\6yoi,

Kal T$ tepc? TOV UvBiov 'AiroXXuvos ov Trjv IXtaSa nal TT\V O8v<r<reiaj>, ov8e TOVS Ili.v8a.pov

iraiavas, eireypa\(/av ol 'AnviKTvoves, dXXci r6 Tv&di, aavTbv, Kal TO yLt]otv ayav, /cat f6

'E77ia, Trapa 5' dra. The Rhetorical writers used them as an illustration of a

/c6jiiMa. See Demetrius (?) On Style 9: optfoj/rat 5' O.VTO co5e, nbwa ecrri TO /cwXou

I\O.TTOV olov ... TO 7?a>0t OCOLVTOV Kal TO kirov 0ec3 Ta TUV ao<p&v. Also Aristides Art

of Rhetoric A' 483 vol. II, p. 763, ed. Dindorf: Ko/xjua 8' &TTI /ccoXou pepos Kad'

Hlv TtBen&ov, cos TO yv&di <ravr6v, Kal wSev ayav.

76 See Heidel, Pseudo-platonica pp. 61-72.

10

in his lost work on Philosophy;76 of Porphyry's book entitled

Sauro? we have only extracts;77 and we likewise have extracts only

from Varro's satire under the same title.78 The Stoics wrote many

treatises upon this apophthegm, in which they made it the sum and

substance of philosophy,79 but none of these are extant, and the only

complete ancient work which bears the title IIEPI TOT TN129I

SATTON directly is Stobaeus' collection of statements from various

writers upon the subject.80

But while most of the longer discussions of yv&Bi vavTov have

been lost, enough remains to show us how thoroughly the maxim

permeated ancient literature and thought. Plato said it was on

everybody's tongue81 and writers of almost every class use it in one

connection or another. Men failed to heed it in practice,82 but they

looked upon it as a divine command and held it in due reverence.

Dio Chrysostom calls the sayings at Delphi "almost more divine

than the oracles delivered by the inspired priestess";83 and Cicero

says that so great is the force of yv&Qt, vavrbv that it is attributed

not to some man but t^theJDj^hic.^oji.84 The "E caelo descendit

yv&6i ffeavTov" of Juvenal85 may be regarded as a succinct expression

of ancient feeling regarding the maxim.

An expression which seemed sent of Heaven, through whosever

lips it first came, and which was so frequently upon the tongue and

pen of the Greeks and their Roman admirers, must have been fraught

76 Stob. Flor. 21; 26; cf. Plutarch Ad. Colot. 20. 'Apio-rorcX^s kv rots

. . ., and Clem, of Alex. Strom. I, 14, 60.

"Stob. Flor. 21:26-28.78 Sat. Menip. pp. 144-147, ed. Reise."

Julian Or. VI, 185D.80 Flor. 21.

81Supra p. 1. cf. Hipparchus 228E, where it is said that Hipparchus set up

Herms in every deme bearing epigrams of his own composing that the people

might not marvel at the wise inscriptions at Delphi.82 See Epictetus III, 1. 18. 5td rl 8k irpoytypairTai TO yvudi aavrov

avr6 VOOVVTOS] Plautus' Pseudolus, 972-3:

"Pauci istuc faciunt homines quod tu praedicas;

Nam in foro vix decumus quisque est qui ipsus sese noverit.

Ausonius De Herediolo 19-20:

"Quamquam difficile est se noscere; ^vS)Oi <reavTov

quam prope legimus, tarn cito neclegimus."

83 Or. LXXII, 386R cos T<? OVTI dy Btta raura nal

ovs 17 IIu0ta expa. . . .

84 De Legibus I, 22. See p. 69.

86 XI, 27.

KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 11

with a meaning capable of varied applications, and it is the various

shades of meaning which yv&di, aavrov conveyed with which this

study is chiefly concerned. Apparently its earlier and ordinaryforces were comparatively simple, but as time went on and literary

discussions multiplied, the maxim came to take on many ideas

which were not connected with it when it first gained potency. These

later uses did not drive out the earlier, but simply served as accre-

tions, arising from the growth of ethical, philosophical, and meta-

physical thought. They began to gather as early as Plato's time,

and it is probable that to him and his Master, Socrates, we owemuch of the emphasis upon certain phases of the interpretation of

the apophthegm. Yet just how much originated with them wecan only infer, as the saying occurs but rarely in the earlier literature.

In point of language, the presence of the maxim is regularly indi-

cated by some form of the verb JLIVUVKU with a reflexive, but it

sometimes happens, particularly among later writers, that olda is

used with the same purport. In fact, oUa and 7i7Pcbo7co> both occur

with this connotation within the same sentence in at least two

instances. 86 The negative is regularly ayvotu. Occasionally yvupifawith a reflexive is suggestive of the maxim. 87 Philo Judaeus some-

times uses verbs of remembering and forgetting to introduce ideas

familiarly expressed with yiyvuaKu and ayvoeu, but this is not usual

among Greek writers. 88 The corresponding Latin phrase for yv&Qt.

ffavrov is Nosce te, but cognosce is used very frequently instead of

the simple verb, and agnosco now and then suggests the apophthegm.ScioSQ and intellego

w are rarely found in this connection, but theydo occur.

86Aristotle, Magna Moralia II, 1213a, 15; Philostratus, A poll, of Ty. Ill, 18.

87 Eud. Ethics VIII 1245a 36-37; Magna Mor. II, 1213a; Porphyry De Absti-

nentia: "Man, in need of all things," he says, ct/cc-; re TOJ di>r)T& rr)s <f>v<reus avrov

os TOV OVTUS tavTov ovK kyv&pHTtv. The words from os on will scan as an iambic

trimeter, which accounts for the line being listed as a Comic Frag, of unknown

origin (vol. Ill, no. 246, ed. Koch).88 The phrase ^17 XavQaveiv abrdv avrov in Plato's Philebus 19C may also suggest

the maxim. See Shorey's rendering in A. J. P. XIII, 372. Cf. Plutarch, QuoModo Adolescent Poet. aud. deb. c. 11; also Proclus on Ale. 7, p. 229 ed. Creuzer:

T&V 8k KaO' eKaffrov p-rjuarcov TO ftev eavrov \t\rj9as oinei6v rri rep eavrbv ayvoovvri,.

88Origen, In Cant. Cant. II, 56.

90 See p. 44, n. 30.

CHAPTER II

SATTON As KNOW YOUR MEASURE

The earliest apparent reference to yv&8i aavrbv is found in a

fragment attributed to Heracleitus: 1

avdp&iroHTL ira&i /zereoTi ywcocrKew ecourous Kal (Taxppovelv.

But this is only a fragment, and without the context the meaningwhich the words are intended to convey cannot be determined direct-

ly. The fragment of Ion, to which we have also alluded, tells us

merely that yv&di (TCLVTOV is difficult. Aeschylus, however, who is

the only other author to use the phrase directly before Plato's time,

brings it into his Prometheus, where its meaning is unmistakable.

The self-will of Prometheus his defiant pride has brought himto his doom and nailed him to a beetling crag on the desolate edgeof the world. Justified in his own eyes for his service to man, he

can see in Zeus' treatment of him only ingratitude for his help in

gaining the throne and an arbitrary use of power, and his Titan

heart knows no flinching. But Oceanus at length comes to beseech

him to conciliate Zeus, and says in the course of his pleadings:2

7t7Pco07ce aavrov Kal fjLedapjjLOcrat, rpoirovs

veovs' veos yap Kal rvpavvos kv deois.

Obviously Oceanus' plea is that Prometheus may humble his prideand adopt manners becoming a subject god. To know himself3

is to know his place as subject of the new king, to recognize his limi-

tations in his inability to defy Zeus save to his own hurt.4 Andthese meanings of yv&Bi (ravrov, together with the more general idea

1 Stob. Flor. V, 119. Bywater (Heracleiti Ephesii Reliquiae, CVI,) questionsthe authenticity of this, but Diels (frag. 116) treats it as genuine. Diels substi-

tutes tppoveiv for the MSS. reading autppovtlv, though he gives no reason for doing so.2 Prow. 309-310.

3Harry (Prometheus p. 184) renders the verb "learn to know thyself (en-

deavor)" as distinguished from the aorist yv&di "come to a knowledge of thy-self (attainment), "and says that the pres. imp. is not as abrupt and urgent as

the aorist. This may be true, but very likely the requirements of the meter

would more naturally account for the shift in tense.

4 Similar to this in spirit are the words of Odysseus in Euripides' Hecuba(vv. 226-228) when he announces Polyxena's doom:

MT' els X*PCOJ> a.fj.L\\av e^eXdys ejuot

yiyvuxTKt 8' &\K^V Kal irapovaiav KO.K&V

TOOV aS)vt ffo<p6v rot, KO.V KCIKOIS a 5eT <ppoveiv.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 13

of knowing the measure of one's capacity, were undoubtedly the

usual connotations of the maxim, as we shall see from our further

study.

If these were the early forces of the apophthegm, we may venture

to construe the fragment of Heracleitus quoted above somewhatin this way:

5 "It is the part of all men to know their limitations andbe sober." Another of Heracleitus' fragments has been thoughtto be connected with the well-known saying the phrase kd^rftra^v

e/zecouTo*/.6 Plutarch in his refutation of Colotes' attack upon Soc-

rates, says with regard to Socrates' seeking to know what man is:7

6 5' 'Hpa/cXeiTOs, cos /zeya rt /cat (j^vbv dicnreirpayiJLevos e5iij<Ta,fj,'r}v, ^crt,

ejjLeuvrbv, KCU r&v kv AeX<pots 'ypa/zjuarcoi' 8eLorarov eSo/cet TO Tv&dt, GCLVTOV.

And Julian connects the two in like manner: 8 OVKOVV 6 ph (kv)

0c6s TO yv&6i aavrov Trpoayopevei, 'Hpa/cXctTOs

Burnet says in his Greek Philosophy :9 "The Delphic precept 'Know

Thyself' was a household word in those days and Herakleitus says

'I sought myself.' He also said (fr. 71) 'You cannot find out the

boundaries of soul: so deep a measure hath it.'10 Whether Her-

acleitus really used the word dlfriwu with the idea of soul-searching

attributed to him by men of a later day, we cannot tell surely from

such a mere fragment, though we know that he was a great thinker

along ethical lines as well as along the lines of natural philosophy11-^

" a thinker of that class to whom nothing thoughtful can be strange."12

But however much of self-examination the words ed^Tjaa^v tptuvrbv

may imply, there is ng indication that in using them Heracleitus him-

self had yv&di (ravrov in mind. Rather we would like to believe

that he used the maxim as we have indicated above, and expressed

the idea of a deeper inner knowledge of self in other ways with

words like

8 It is possible that awtppovtlv may be synonymous here with

in its meaning of 'Know your place.' See pp. 33 ff.

Diels, frag. 101.

7 Ad. Colot. c. 20.

Or. VI, 185A.

9 Pt. I, p. 59.

10 See p. 82.

11 See Diogenes Laert. IX, 1. 4. Teyoj/e 5 8avfj.a<rios e/c Traldwv, ore KCU veos &v

%<pa<TKe iJ,r)8ci> dbtvac reXcios pkvTQi yevo^evos, iravra kyvwukvai. fJKovae re ovdevos, dXX'

avrbv t<m St^aaotfcu. . . . Cf. Stob. Flor. 21:7.

12Benn, Greek Philosophers, p. 19.

14

If yv&Qi vavTov ordinarily suggested knowing one's measure or

limits, we may agree with the scholiast in seeing an indirect allusion

to it in Pindar's Pythian II, 34. He is speaking of Ixion's falling

into presumptuous sin in attempting to pollute the couch of Hera,and he adds:

Xpri 5e /car' avrov aiel iravros opav perpov.

Jebb says: "this passage has been taken to imply the Pythagoreandoctrine of a relative ethical mean" 13

; Taylor in his Ancient Ideals

renders it, "Take measure of Thyself" and connects it with wbwayav; while Gildersleeve15 calls it, "only another form of the homelyadvice of Pittacus to one about to wed above his rank rav Kara aavrov

eXa." Gildersleeve translates it, however, "To measure everything

by one's self, i.e., to take one's own measure in every plan of life";

and this meaning "to take one's measure" the scholiast of old recog-nized as the common interpretation of the Delphic yv&di aavrbv.

"It is fitting," says the scholiast16 on the passage, "to consider the

measure of things according to one's power and to desire these, andnot strive for those beyond our power. This is like the inscription

by Chilon at Delphi." The word ^krpov may suggest the doctrine

of the Mean, it is true, and the context of the passage happens to

fit well with the Pittacus saying; but if, as seems probable, the idea

of taking one's own measure was to the Greek an instant reminder of

yv&Qi cravrov, it seems natural to so construe it here. 17

By way of evidence that yv&Qi aavrbv in its ordinary acceptancemeant 'know your own measure,' we have an interesting passagein Xenophon's Hellenica where Thrasybulus makes it the text

of his address to the City party after the victory of the patriots

13Essays and Addresses, p. 55, & ft. note.

14 Vol. I, page 202 & note.15Olympian and Pythian Odes, p. 260. He compares with this Pindar

passage Aeschylus' Prom. 892: o>s TO Krjdevaat. KaB' kavrov dpio-revet /ia/cp$ which,as Seymour (Select Odes of Pindar, p. 145) reminds us, the Scholiast on Aeschylus

says is "a development of the saying of Pittacus."16 Vol. II, p. 42. ed. Drachman. r&v Kara TT\V eaurou d&vantv TO iitrpov aKo-Ktlv

Jia.1 Toi)Tuv k-jriBvuelv, ai fj.ii T&V virtp dvvafjuv bptyeadai. 6/Miov 5e roOro T$ VTTO XtXcovos

&v AeX^ots 'yypa<pevTL [yv&dc aavrbv}.17 The phrase in this same ode v. 72 ykvoC olos k<ral tiaB&v taken apart from

ats context, might seem to refer to yv&di aavTbv also, but as Gildersleeve (p. 264)

shows, the iJ,aOa)v is not a part of the command, and the sentence means "Show

thyself who thou art, for I have taught it thee."

18II, IV, 40-41.

1"IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 15

over the Thirty at Eleusis. Upon the conclusion of the termsof peace and the disbanding of Pausanias' army, the patriots hadmarched up to the Acropolis and offered sacrifice to Athena; andwhen they came down, the generals called a meeting of the Ecclesia.

Thrasybulus then made an address beginning with the words:

viuv, & K TOV aorecos iivdpes, o-i>/i/3ouXei>a> eyco yv&vai vfjias CLVTOVS.

"And you might know yourselves best," he goes on to say, "if youwould take account of the qualities upon which you ought to pride

yourselves in attempting to rule over us. Are you more just? The

people, though poorer than you, have never wronged you for the sake

of money, while you, who are richer than all, have done many dis-

graceful deeds for the sake of gain. . . . Consider whether it is

for your courage forsooth that you ought to feel pride. Whatfairer test of this than the way in which we have carried on the war

against each other? Could you claim to be superior in intelligence

you who with a fortification, and arms, and money, and Pelopen-nesian allies have been worsted by men who had none of these

things?" This quotation is sufficient, perhaps, to show the sense

in which Thrasybulus used the maxim, and it is significant not onlybecause the apophthegm formed the basis of a speech before the

Assembly on so momentous an occasion, but also because it dem-onstrates the interpretation put upon yv&di aavTov by ordinary menof affairs. Thrasybulus would have the City party measure them-

selves carefully in comparison with the patriots, and recognize the

limits of their own moral qualities and power to achieve.

Xenophon discusses our apophthegm in his Cyropaedia19 in the

story of a conversation between Croesus and Cyrus after the captureof Sardis. "Tell me, Croesus," said Cyrus, "how have your responsesfrom Delphi turned out? For it is said that Apollo has received

much service from you and you do everything in obedience to him. "20

Croesus gave a brief account of his relations 'with the Oracle and

told of how after one of his sons was born dumb and the other was

killed,21 he sent in his affliction to ask the God in what way he could

19VII, II, 20-25. Cf. Herodotus I, 28-91. The similarity between many

features of this story of Xenophon's and the account in Herodotus is striking,

but the connection with yv&Qi (ravrov is Xenophon's addition.

20 Cf. Her. I, 46-51, esp. 51, where he tells us that Croesus sent rich gifts

to Delphi.21 Cf. Her. I, 34 ff .

16 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

spend the rest of his life most happily.22

IZavrbv yiyvuvKuv

Kpoio-e, Trepans, the god replied. Croesus thought that the easiest

thing in the world, he said, for while in the case of other people it

is possible to know some and others not, he thought every one knewwith regard to himself both who and what he is. But after several

years of peace, spoiled by his wealth and by flatterers, and by those

who begged him to become their leader, he accepted the commandof the army, supposing he was capable of becoming very great

23

"not knowing himself, forsooth." For he thought he was able to

carry on war against Cyrus, a man descended from the gods, of

kingly race, and practised in courage from a child,24 while the first

of his own ancestors to be king was a freedman. "But now surely,

O Cyrus," he says, "yiyvuvKu pev, e/zaurov, and do you think that

Apollo spoke the truth in saying that in knowing myself I shall be

happy?"25

Cyrus promised to restore to him his wife and family, bid-

ding him refrain from wars thereafter, and Croesus was content. In

this story, which we have necessarily condensed, we see again the

yv&di ffavTov interpreted as 'know your own measure,'26 for Croesus

admits that he thought himself more capable than he was until

experience in matching himself against Cyrus brought him to a

better self-realization.

In Plato's Philebus27 we arrive at this meaning of yv&Qi aavrov

through a characterization of the man who does not know himself.

Socrates and Protarchus are discussing mixed pleasures pleasuresmixed with pain when both are mental and Socrates says that we

experience these mixed feelings when viewing Comedy. The real

nature of the comic is at bottom a kind of evil, he says specifically

that evil which is experiencing the opposite of what is said in the

inscription at Delphi. "Do you mean yv&Qi aavr6v?" Protarchus

asks, and Socrates replies: "I do, and clearly the opposite of that

would be not to know oneself at all." Socrates then goes on to

define ignorance of self as an over-estimate of one of three things

22 Herodotus (I, 30 ff.) tells how Croesus tried to make Solon say he was the

happiest of men.23 Sec. 24. The Oracle told Croesus that if he should make war on the Per-

sians he would destroy a mighty empire, but that empire proved to be his own.

Her. I, 53 and 86.

24 Cf. Ale, 7, 121D-122A.25 Sec. 25.

26 See L. Schmidt, Ethik der alien Griechen II, p. 395.27 48C ff.

17

our wealth, our personal appearance, o: our character.28 The manwho does not know himse 1 will fancy that he is richer than his actual

amount of property warrants, or he will think himself taller and bet-

ter looking than he is, or will think himself better than he is in pointof virtue. And of virtues in general, wisdom is the one that most menhave a false conceit about. The man who thus has an exalted opinionof himself, if he be powerful and able to avenge any ridicule, will

be an object of fear; but if he is weak and harmless, he becomes an

object of laughter and despite. We find pleasure in our laughter,

yet in our feeling of despite there is a certain pain. The questionas to whether Plato is fair29 to Comedy here in taking as an instance

but one type of comic character need not concern us, for we are

interested only in the interpretation of yv&Qi cravrov By showingwhat the opposite would be, the passage defines it for us indirectly,

for if the man who does not know h'mself has a false conceit of his

possessions, his outward personality, his character and his wisdom,it follows that he who does know himself does not over-estimate

his wealth, his appearance, his virtue, or his knowledge. In other

words, he knows his own measure both in external goods and in in-

ternal qualities.

The above passage from the Philebus is only one of many in which

the phrase ayvoelv tavrbv is suggestive of the maxim, for it is the

usual way of expressing a failure to meet the behest. And it is

through this negative form that we are reminded indirectly of yv&Bi

aavrov in Aristotle's description of the High-minded man. This

High-minded man (neyaXofaxos) he regards as a mean between the

Little-minded man (fjLiKp6\f/vxos) on the one hand and the Conceited

man (xaOws) on the other, and he describes the Little-minded man as

eOLKeV KCLKOV 6%tV Ti K TOV fJir) CL^LOVV ZCLVTOV T&V ajad&V KCLL ayVOLV 8e tCLVTOV?

28 Isocrates refers to this tripartite division in his Antidosis 240. Porphyry

(Stob. Flor. 21:28) speaks of the tripartite division of ignorance of self in the

Philebus, and goes on to say: fj ov irav ye TO Qv-qrov avTiupvs. . .

cbs ore rts \f/afj,ajdov TTCUS &7X 1- OaXacrcrris,

6<rr' cTrei ovv iroiT)<Tri advpp.ara vrjineri&iv,

a.\}/ avdis avvfxfvt irocriv Kal ytpaiv oBvpwv (II. XV, 362-364)

iras ovv ayvoLg. eaurou TO, xaB' avrbv tiraipwv dXia-Kerat virtp rrjs dTjfj.iovpyTjffaa-'ris avrbv

<pv<reo}s ir\eiov rf kudv-t] jSejSouX^rcu, rd avrijs ws crc/jiva davnafav iralyvia . . . TO

yvcodt ovv (ravTov dirjKec ets iraaav VTrb\t]^iv Trjs -irpotrova-^s 5wct/zos, Trapayyt\\ov

yiyvu<rKLV TO. juerpa liri TTCLVTCOV. . . .

29Jowett in a footnote to his Introduction to the Philebus, p. 545, maintains

that he is not.

*Nic. Ethics IV. 9. 1125, a.21.

18

while he characterizes the X^VVOL as i?Xi0ioi /ecu eaurous

The High-minded man, he tells us, is a man worthy of great things,

who with a true estimate of himself lays claim to greatness.32 The

Little-minded man has great qualities likewise, but he does not think

he has, and in that he does not appreciate his own worth and act

upon it, he knows not himself in that sense. On the other hand,the man who lays claim to honors which belong to greatness without

possessing the requisite qualities is a fool and likewise lacking in

self-knowledge. The High-minded man, then, in that he is a meanbetween the man who under-estimates and the man who over-esti-

mates himself, both of whom fail to fulfill the God's command, must

be the very embodiment of the maxim, since he has a perfect estimate

of his own high worth.

The two historical characters most conspicuous in ancient litera-

ture for their failure to know themselves were Alcibiades and Alex-

ander. In the Alcibiades I, which is, as we have indicated, a veri-

table treatise upon rV0t Saurw, Alcibiades is represented as a youngman, not yet twenty years old,

33 about to come forward in public

life, and Socrates, whose alleged purpose is to bring him to a know-

ledge of himself, reminds him of his great ambitions and his lack of

preparation to carry them out. He shows him that he really knows

nothing about politics, for he does not know the nature of justice

and injustice, either from investigating them himself or from anyteacher; and if he thinks he is no worse than other Athenian states-

men, Socrates suggests that he measure himself with the Spartanand Persian kings, whose superiority in point of descent, early educa-

tion, and wealth, he sets forth at length. Then he appeals to Alci-

biades with the words:34'AXX', co jucwcdpie, ireLdofjievos e/zot re KCU r$ tv

AeX^>ois "ypd/j/jari, yv&dt, (ravrov, on OVTOL rjtuv ei<nv dpriTraXot, dXX' ovx

ovs <rv oi'ei. To the further discussion of the maxim in this Dialoguewe shall return later, but it is interesting to observe that in this

first occurrence it has its ordinary force 'know your own limits'' know your measure. '

31 1125a.28.32 1123b. 1-2. In his Rhetoric Aristotle uses neyaXoif/vxos in a somewhat

narrower sense. He applies it to the young and defines it as TO AioCi> avr6v

irrespective of the justice of the claim. He also speaks of the Old as

because they have been humbled (TeTaireiv&o-dat) by life. (II, 13, 5).33 123 D.34 124 A-B.

19

Alexander the Great, who like Alcibiades had vast ambitions,was reminded of his failure to obey the Delphic precept by Dio-

genes the Cynic, according to a story told by Dio Chrysostom.35

While at Corinth, Alexander went to visit the Philosopher, and after

he had recovered from his surprise at being asked to stand a little

to one side that he might not shade Diogenes from the sun,36 he at

length asked Diogenes how one could be the best kind of a king37

and from whom he could learn the art. Diogenes replied that he

should learn the art from Zeus and the Zeus-nourished kings of

Homer (5torpe<pets jScunXeas).38 A King like Xerxes, when he drove his

hordes into Greece, he said, acted as a cook, driving them to be

butchered.39 "Does not even the Great King seem to you to be a

king?" asked Alexander. "No more than my little ringer," replied

Diogenes. "Then will I not be a great king if I overthrow him?"Alexander asked further. Diogenes answered that he would no morebe a real king than if he were made so by children in a game,

40 andAlexander was vexed, because he did not care to live if he could not

be king of Europe and Asia and Lybia and the islands of the sea

. . . .41 "You seem to be jesting," he said. "If I take Darius and the

king of India besides, nothing will hinder my . being the greatest

king who ever existed. For what is there left for me to conquer,after subduing Babylon and Susa and Ecbatana and gaining con-

trol of affairs in India?" And Diogenes, seeing him aflame with

ambition, said "You will not be a king the more as a result of this

purpose, not even if you leap over the wall of Babylon and so take

the city . . . nor if you take a continent greater than Asia byswimming through the ocean." "And what further enemy is left

me?" said Alexander, "after I take these whom I have mentioned?"

"The hardest to fight of all," replied Diogenes, "not a Persian,nor a Lydian in speech, as I suppose Darius is, but a Macedonianand a Greek." And Alexander was confused and contended that

he did not know any one in Macedonia or in Greece prepared to

make war, and he asked who this enemy in Greece or Macedonia

35 Or. IV.38 147 R.

150 R.38 155 R.39 156 R.40 156 R-157 R.41 158 R.

20

might be. "You are your own worst enemy," . . . Diogenes

answered,42 "and this is the man of whom you are ignorant as of

none other. For no uncontrolled and wicked man understands

himself, else Apollo would not have enjoined this first of all as the

hardest thing for each of us, yv&vai eavrov. Or do you not consider

cuppovvvrf* the greatest and most deadly of all diseases . . .?"

"You will have the truth from me alone," Diogenes says a little

farther on, "and from no one else could you learn it." Alexander

was evidently making the mistake of estimating himself by his posi-

tion and military achievements rather than by his real qualities of

character, and the Cynic would have him know the measure of his

real self.

Diogenes gives the maxim much the same force in Dio Chrysostom'sshort dialogue on Reputation.

44 The question is raised as to

how the philosopher seems to differ from the rest of mankind, and

the gist of Diogenes' argument is that the philosopher brings every-

thing to the test of truth, while others are guided by what men sayof them. "Would a man be of any account," Diogenes asks, "if

he measures himself by this rule and standard?", and his interlocutor

replies that he certainly would not. Then the dialogue continues:

A^Xop yap 6n ovdeirore yvoirj av eavrov ourco (TKOTT&V Oi> jap av yvolr]

"ficrre OVK av en ireidoiTO r<2> AeX<pu3 7rpo<rp?7ju(m KeXevffavri iravros fJLO\\ov

yLjvuaKeiv avrov. The effect of flattery in making a man "think more

highly of himself than he ought to think" is a common theme in

ancient literature and is associated with yv&6i vavrov on more sides

than one. It v/as implied in the words of Diogenes to Alexander to

the effect that Alexander would learn the truth from him alone, and

we remember that Croesus frankly admitted that he grew to over-

estimate his powers partly because he was spoiled by flatterers.45 So

Seneca, in speaking of the subject, says that men in position wholisten to flattery do not know their own strength, but while theybelieve that they are as great as they- hear themselves called, theydraw on unnecessary and hazardous wars. 46 Plato saw in this in-

42 160 R.

43 For the significance of the word cuppoo-vvr] here, compare Chap. IV, page

38. It is evidently the opposite of awvpoavvri in its general sense.

44 Or. LXVII, 361 R.

45 Cf. Zeno (Stob. Flor. 14, 4) "EXeTx* ffavrov ocrris el, AH) irpos \apiv a/cou',

dcocupoD 5e KoXd/ccoj' Trapprjaiav.

48 De Beneficiis VI. 30, 5. See p. 24, n. 8.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 21

sidious evil a chief reason why his dream of an ideal king must

ever fall short of fulfillment, and its prevalence is undoubtedly re-

sponsible in part for the fact that yv&Qi vavrdv is hard.

When we come to Latin authors we meet an apparent allusion

to the maxim in this sense of "knowing one's measure" in Plautus'

Stichus, where in answer to the question

"Quae tibi mulier videtur multo sapientissima?"one of the characters replies:

"Quae tamen, quom res secundae sunt, se poterit gnoscere,

Et ilia quae aequo animo patietur sibi esse peius quam fuit."47

The maxim occurs again with this force in one of Cicero's Phil-

lipics.48 He is inveighing against the audacity of Antony in occupy-

ing Pompey's house, and he says: "An tu, ilia in vestibule rostra

(spolia) cum adspexisti, domum tuam te introire putas? Fieri

non potest. Quamvis enim sine mente sine sensu sis, ut es, tamen

et te et tua et tuos nosti." In saying "you know yourself and your

property and your household," Cicero implies that Antony must

realize that he is not Pompey's equal, and to that extent, of course,

he knows or measures himself aright.

But the best instance in Latin literature of the use of yv&Bi aavrov

with its original force occurs in the satire of Juvenal49 to which we

have already alluded. The satire contains an invitation to a simple

dinner, and it begins with a picture of an Epicure who lives beyondhis means. In a man like Rutilius a sumptuous table is an extrava-

gance, though in the case of Ventidius it is praiseworthy because

of his wealth; and the Poet continues:

"Ilium ego iure

Despiciam, qui scit quanto sublimior Atlas

Omnibus in Libya sit montibus, hie tamen idem

Ignoret, quantum ferrata distet ab area

Sacculus. E caelo descendit yvu>8(, a-eavT6v,

Figendum et memori tractandum pectore, sive

Conjugium quaeras vel sacri in parte senatus

Esse velis;

Seu tu magno discrimine causam

Protegere adfectas, te consule, die tibi qui sis,

Orator vehemens, an Curtius et Matho buccae.

47 vv. 124-125.48

II, 28.

49 XI, 23 S.

22 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

Noscenda est mensura sui spectandaque rebus

In summis minimisque,80 etiam cum piscis emetur,

Ne mullum cupias, quern sit tibi gobio tantum

In loculis."

This extract from Juvenal illustrates so clearly the use of yv&Qi aavrov

which we have been trying to emphasize that further comment

upon the passage is superfluous.51

Stobaeus' compilation of statements from various authors on

the subject of yv&di GVVTOV contains much valuable material in itself,

but the very position of the chapter in his Florilegium is also signi-

ficant. The book consists of quotations touching various virtues

and vices, each chapter on some virtue being followed by one on

its corresponding vice. It is accordingly noteworthy that the chapteron the vice corresponding to IIEPI TOT TNttGI SATTON52

is entitled

HEPI THEPO^IAS.53 Thus did the earlier and really dominant

force of the maxim persist until the sixth century A. D. amid all

the added conceptions which the growth of the centuries brought.Side by side with this general meaning of 'knowing one's measure

or limits,' there went the more specific ideas of 'knowing what one

can and cannot do,' and 'knowing one's place.' They belong very

closely to the general thought, however, and we distinguish them

only according to the apparent emphasis in given instances and as a

matter of convenience for our study.

80 Cf. Horace, Ep. I, 7, 98: "Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede veruru

est." Also Lucan's Pharsalia VIII, 527: "Metiri sua regna decet viresquefateri."

61 Henry Parks Wright says in his edition of Juvenal p. 138; "Juvenal extends

it (yvudi ffavTov) beyond the Nosce animum tuum of Cicero, Tusc. Dis. I. 52 and

makes it include the measure of one's abilities and resources." It is evident

that the ordinary Greek usage has escaped him.

"Stob. Flor. 21.

13 c. 22. Extract no. 4 of this chapter is taken from Philemon and reads:

TO yv&di, GavTov ob fj,a.rr}i> V 1a6' onTOVTO bo^av ev AeX^ots ?x-

CHAPTER III

SATTON As KNOW WHAT You CAN AND CANNOT Do

There is a rather long discussion of yv&8i aavr6v in the fourth

book of Xenophon's Memorabilia,1 and while the passage contains

more than one idea connected with the maxim, the dominant force

there given it is a knowledge of what one can and cannot do. Socrates

is talking with Euthydemus, a representative of the class of peoplewho think they have acquired the best education and pride them-

selves on their wisdom. 2Euthydemus admits that he is aspiring

to become a statesman,3 as did the young Alcibiades under somewhat

similar circumstances,4 and Socrates brings him by a series of ques-

tions to the point where he is dismayed at his inability to answer.

Then Socrates asks him:5 "Tell me, Euthydemus, have you ever

been to Delphi?" "Yes, twice," said he. "Did you notice, then,an inscription somewhere on the temple the yv&Qi (TOLVTOV?" "Yes.""Did you pay no attention to the inscription, or did you heed it and

try .to consider what you were?" "No indeed," said he, "for I

surely thought I knew that at least. I would scarcely know anythingat all, if I actually did not know myself."

6 "Does a man seem to

you to know himself who knows his name only?" asks Socrates,

and he goes on to bring out the thought that just as in buying a

horse men seek to learn its disposition and strength, so we should

know our own ability: ol n& yap ddores eaurous, he says, TO. re CTrm^eio,

iavTots Iffcur t, Kal diayLyvwcrKovaw a re dvvavTai, Kal & M. "And in doingwhat they understand," he continues, "they procure what they need

and are successful, while by refraining from what they do not under-

stand, they are without fault and avoid faring ill. ... But those

who do not know themselves, and are deceived about their own

ability, are in like case with regard to other men and other humanaffairs

; they do not know what they need nor what they are doingnor what they are using, but, mistaken in all these things, they miss

1c. II.

2 Sec. 1.

3 Sec. 11.

4 Socrates' method of proceedure in dealing with the youth is quite similar

also.

6 Sec. 24.

See. p. 78.

24

the good and fall upon evil.7

. . . You see this, too, in the case of

states that those which go to war with a stronger power, ignorantof their own inability, are laid waste or lose their freedom." 8

Euthydemus at length admits that knowing oneself should be madea matter of great importance, and asks how one ought to begin the

self-examination. Socrates does not reply directly, but by a series

of further questions about Good and Evil and about Democracy,he leads Euthydemus to recognize still more his own ignorance and

sends him away crest-fallen.

This idea of knowing the extent of one's ability seems to be the

leading thought in Aristotle's treatment of yv&8L (ravrov in his Rhet-

oric9 in the course of his discussion of the use of maxims in Oratory.

The passage has presented some difficulties in translation, to judgefrom the obscurity of most English renderings, but the general

meaning becomes clear if we interpret "knowing oneself" correctly.

"Maxims may be cited too," Aristotle says, "in contradiction of

sayings that have become public property, (by public property I

mean, for instance, the yvSfli aavrov and the prjtev ayav) whenever

. . . they are uttered under stress of emotion. It would be a case

of the emotional use, for example, et ns opy^o^evos (pa.lt] \f/ev5os tlvai obs Set

avrov' euros yovv d eyiyvuvKtv iavrov, OVK av irore GTparriyeiv

Cope is probably right in understanding the OVTOS to be

"some imaginary person," and in taking the words of the sentence

7 Sec. 26-27. Cf. Plato's Charmides 164 A-C.8 Observe in this connection the use of the Greek word 'yvwa^ax^iv for

knowing the weakness of one's fighting power in comparison with that of the

enemy. Her. Ill, 25: d nfv vvv nad&v ravra 6 Kaju/SuaTjs tyt>ucriiJ.axtt, xai ciTrfJye

OTTieroo TOV ffrparov, kiri ry apx^jdfv yevo/ji.kvrj d/xapra.5i, T\V av avrip <ro<p6s.

Euripides Heracl. 706-707 :

TO. 5*

See also Her. VII. 130; VIII, 29; Isoc. ad. Phil. 83D; Paus. IX, VII, 4. Cf.

Seneca, De Beneficiis VI, 30, 5: "Ignoravere vires saas et dum se tarn magnos

quam audiunt, credunt adtraxere supervacua et in discrimen rerum omnium

perventura bella. The Auctor ad Herrenium IV, 9 (13): "Hi cum se et suas opes

et copiam necessario norunt, turn vero nihilo minus propter propinquhatem et

omnium rerum societatem quid omnibus rebus populus Romanus posset, scire

et existimare poterant." Florus, II, 17, 3-4, pp. 190-191 ed. Lemaire: "Hispaniae

numquam animus fuit adversus nos universae consurgere . . . Sed ante a

Romanis obsessa est quam se ipsa cognosceret; et sola omnium provinciarumvires suas, postquam victa est, intellexit."

II. 21, 13.

25

with which it begins as Aristotle's own rather than as a quotationfrom some orator. 10 And Cope is right, too, in suggesting that

the maxim means knowing one's "own incapacity." The ima-

ginary orator in a burst of indignation against some incompetent

general thus says in effect: "It's all a lie that one must know him-

self! At any rate, if that fellow had known how incapable he was,he would never have claimed the office of General." 11 While wehave no instance of a yv&di aavrbv in the extant spoken orations of the

Ten Orators, this passage, like the address of Thrasybulus in Xeno-

phon's Hellenica, indicates the sense in which it was naturally used

in public speeches, and its evident meaning for the audience.

This meaning for the maxim is further illustrated in Epictetus'Discourse to a Would-be Cynic.

12Being a Cynic involves not merely

wearing a cloak and going about begging with staff and wallet,13

he says. It involves the rising superior to Desire,14 indifference

to Death,15 and the consciousness of having been sent from Zeus16

to proclaim to people fearlessly that they are seeking for happinessin possessions and in power rather than in indifference to these

things. A man who is going to be a Cynic must look himself over

to see if he is equal to the exactions of the Cynic life, just as a con-

testant at the Olympic Games takes notice of his shoulders and

thighs.17

/3ouXeu0-(u kiri^eKkarepov, he adds, yv&Bi aavrov, avaKpivov r6

dawoviov, dlxcL 6eovjj,r) e-Trtxeipiyo-fls.

18 For the Cynic must be in truth

superior to others if he would teach. He must be as a queen among

10Sandys, Aristotle's Rhetoric With a Commentary by M. Cope, p. 217 n. 13.

Victorius thinks the words refer to a certain Iphicrates of lowly origin, whohad come to achieve distinction. Buckley in a note to his translation, p. 173,

also says: "The words probably of some panegyrist of Iphicrates." Cope'srefutation seems well-grounded, although in his own rendering he rather over-

emphasizes the man's success.

11 It may have been in some such spirit of challenge that Menander madeone of his characters say:

Kara TroXX' ap' kvrlv ov KaXcos elpr)/j,kvoi>

TO yv&Qi, aavrov. xpy&W&Tepov yap f\v

rb yv&di TOVS aXXous. (Stob. Fl&r. 21.5.)12

III, 22.

13 Sec. 10.

14 Sec. 13.

15 Sec. 21.

16 Sec. 23-26.17 Sec. 51-52.

18 Sec. 53.

26

the bees, not a drone claiming superiority over them. 19 And so

the man who is thinking of becoming a Cynic needs to first consider

his preparation,20 as Hector knew his own preparation for war,

while, aware of Andromache's weakness, he bade her go into the

house and weave.21 The general tone of this discourse, and the last

part in particular, indicate that Epictetus does not think the youthin question capable of filling the Cynic's role, and his use of the

maxim is evidently a warning to him to take account of his limited

capacity.22 The allusion to Hector's consciousness of his strength

reminds us of the passage in Plutarch's Banquet of the Seven Wise

Men23 in which Hector is said to know the limits of his ability:

Kai <prj<n rbv fj.lv "E/cropa yiyvuxiKtiv eavrov, rots 7dp aXXots 7rire0ejuei'os

"Aiavros dXeape IJLOLXW TeXejuawdSao.24

Plutarch again uses the apophthegm with this force of knowing the

limits of one's ability in an ironical passage near the beginning of his

Life of Demosthenes.^ He says that in writing the Parallel Lives of

Demosthenes and Cicero he is going to compare them from the stand-

point of their deeds and political measures, and not attempt to show

from their speeches which was the pleasanter or more clever orator.

And then he gives a thrust at Caecilius:" For in that case I would have

as much strength as a dolphin on dry land," he says, "a saying of

Ion's which that marvellous Caecilius did not know when like a

hot-headed youth he attempted to bring out a comparison of Cicero

and Demosthenes. 'AXXd 7dp toxos, d Travros r\v TO I>o>0i aavrov \tiv

,OVK av tdoKei irpoarayna deiov emu!" Caecilius, as we know,

19 Sec. 95-99.

20 Sec. 107-109. Cf. 11.6,3. Ka\6v 81 r6 tiSevcu TT\V avrov irapaaKev^v nal

21 From II. VI, 492.

22 That yv&di <ravr6v was sometimes on the lips of the Cynics themselves

may be inferred, perhaps, from a fragment of Menander (Diog. Laert. VII,

3, 2, 83). In describing a wretched cynic for whom he has contempt he calls

him a dirty beggar, and says of him:

etXA* eKetvos >rj/J.a. rt

t<pQeya.T' obf&v kfj.<pepes juet rbv Ala

T$ yv&Oi aavrov, ovdl rots

Toirois'

83C. 21.

"From //.XL 542.

c. 3.

27

was a prominent rhetor of the Age of Augustus,26 who wrote copiously

upon various subjects connected with Greek Oratory; and in com-

paring the style of Demosthenes and Cicero, he was following a

line of literary criticism common in his day and earlier. 27 But his

ability was not equal to so delicate a task in Plutarch's estimation,

apparently, and the ^vuBi aavrbv is certainly brought in with telling

irony.28

As a revelation of a character who was himself keenly conscious

of what he could and could not do, the letter of the Emperor Julian

to Themistius is of value in this particular regard. ApparentlyThemistius had written to Julian upon his accession to the throne

expressing great hope in his rule.29 He told him that God had

placed him in a position similar to that of Heracles and Dionysus,

who were at the same time philosophers and kings, and who purgedthe entire land and sea of the evils which infested them; and he

urged him to shake off all thought of leisure and use his efforts in a

manner worthy of his high destiny. In his reply Julian warns

Themistius not to expect too much of him, saying that he is not a

man of superior natural ability,30 and that while he has never been

averse to toil and danger, he shrinks from the life into which he has

been drawn. "Perhaps I seem ... to be ignoble and small in

view of the gifts of Fortune," he says,31 "in that I love Athens

26Dionysus of Halicarnassus speaks of Caecilius as his warm friend Ad Pomp.

777.27 See Brzoska, De Canone Oratorum Atticorum, pp. 35-41.

28 For an example of a man who did not attempt to do the impossible in

literature, see Alexander's characterization of Hesiod in Dio Chrysostom II.

77R. Alexander is there arguing for the superiority of Homer, and he says

that not even Hesiod himself was ignorant of how far his ability fell below Ho-

mer's (ayvoelv Trjv eavrov 5vvafj.u> ocrov eXeiTrero 'O/^pou). For while Homer wrote

about heroes, Hesiod made a catalog of women and sang the praise of woman-kind. So Horace says of himself:

"nee meus audet

Rem temptare pudor, quam vires ferre recusent."

(Ep. II, 1, 258-59)

And in his Ars Poetica he advises the would-be poet to choose a subject according;

to his ability:

"Sumite materiam vestris, qui scribitis, aequamViribus, et versate diu, quid ferre recusent,

Quid valeant umeri :

". . . (vv. 38-41).

29Julian, Letter to Themistius 253C-254A.

30 254B.31 260B-C.

28

more than the present pomp that surrounds me, praising, of course,

the leisure of the time I spent there and finding fault with my presentlife on account of its multitudinous duties. But you ought to judgeabout me better, not with a view to my industry or the lack of it,

but rather looking to the TvGtii aavrov and the

"Ep5ot 6' c/caoros fyriv eldelr) rk-\yr]v?2

Being a king appears to me something beyond human powers, anda king seems to need a more divine character, as Plato used to say."And in his concluding paragraph he says: "Since I am conscious of

no good in me save this only that I do not even think I have the

greatest abilities when I have none with reason do I cry out andbear witness that you must not demand great things of me, but

entrust everything to God." This letter breathes throughout the

spirit of a man who feels himself in a position for which his natural

abilities and tastes have not fitted him, and that he cannot fill it

as he ought, try as he may. The connotation of yv&6i (TCLVTOV is

clear. His success as Emperor is not a question of his industry, he

maintains, but should rather be judged on the basis of what he

really has it within his capacity to do.

While, as Seneca says, "Necesse est seipsum aestimare, quia fere

plus nobis videmur posse quam possumus,"33

it is likewise true that

some people think too meanly of themselves and so fall short of

their possible attainment. Aristotle's Little-minded Man34 wassuch a person, and prior to Aristotle, the Charmides of Xenophon'sMemorabilia.35

Charmides, while a mere youth in Plato, is repre-

sented by Xenophon as a mature man a man of ability and influence

32 See Aristophanes, Vesp. 1431. Cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. I, 18: "Bene enimillo Graecorum proverbio praecipitur:

'Quam quisque novit artem, in hac se exerceat.'"

Also Hor. Ep. I, 14, 44:

"Quam scit uterque, libens, censebo, exerceat artem. "

33 De Tranq. An. 6, 3. The entire chapter is relevant. Note especially

ulso the words in sec. 4: "Aestimanda sunt deinde ipsa, quae adgredimur, et vires

nostrae cum rebus, quas temptaturi sumus, conparandae." See also citation

on p. 30, n. 41.

34 Aristotle says that Little-mindedness is a more frequent and a worse

defect than self-conceit (Nic. Ethics 1125a, 35.) Moore, The Ethics of Aristotle,

pp. 234-5, says this is because the Vain-glorious man does not shrink from great

tasks which his "unbounded self-confidence may sometimes carry him through,"

while the Little-minded man is content with low aims and aspirations. Cf.

Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle, vol. II, p. 78, n.

"111,7,9.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 29

in private life, but averse to coming before the people in public.

Socrates rebukes him for avoiding his duty as a citizen, and meets

his natural shrinking from the public gaze, and the possible ridicule

of the Assembly, by pointing out the folly of his fearing to face the

masses when he copes so readily in conversation with the more

intelligent and foremost citizens. "My good fellow," he says,

"^117 ayvoel creavrov, and do not commit the fault which most peoplecommit. For they hasten off to investigate the affairs of others,

and do not turn to examine themselves. Now do not you be faint-

hearted in this, but rather stretch every nerve to give heed to your-self. And do not neglect the interests of the city, if it is in any

way possible for it to become better through you." As we have

already pointed out, there is an implication of yv&di o-avrov in

ajvoet aavTov, usually, and the maxim thus has its message for the

self-depreciating man. 36

Evidently Cicero's brother Quintus also was a man who shrank

from putting himself forward, and in his letter to him On Standingfor the Consulship, Cicero reminds him of JVCO&L VCLVTOV. He bids

him think what the State is, what he seeks, and what he is,37 and he

develops each of these points in turn. Then after emphasizingthe need of the greatest tact and wisdom on Quintus' part, he urgeshim strongly to make the most of his oratorical gifts, since Rome is

much influenced by oratory, and he adds: "Quoniam in hoc vel

maxime est vitiosa civitas, quod largitione interposita virtutis ac

dignitatis oblivisci solet, in hoc fac ut te bene noris, id est ut intellegas

eum esse te qui iudicii ac periculi metum maximum competitoribusaffere possis.

"38 In this instance Cicero is trying to impress his

brother with a realization of his powers as an orator. In another

letter he tries to rouse him to an appreciation of his literary talent.

He says near the close of the letter: "Quattuor tragoedias sedecim

diebus absolvisse cum scribas, tu quicquam ab alio mutuaris? et

iraOos quaeris, cum Electram et Aeropam scripseris? Cessator esse

36Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, p. 88, makes too general

a statement when he says "There was something of a tendency to pose in every

Greek, a tendency which had been rebuked in the old motto 'Know Thyself.'"

So Nettleship: Lectures on Plato's Republic, p. 106, speaks of "the inherent ten-

dency of many Greek peoples to be 'imitative men,' always posing instead of beingthemselves."

87 De Petitione I, 2.

18 Sec. 55.

30 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

noli et illud yv&Q(. aeavrbv noli putare ad adrogantiam minuendamsolum esse dictum, verum etiam ut bona nostra norimus. "39

A specific phase of 'knowing what one can do' is 'knowingone's special bent.

' The importance of this knowledge is a leading

Platonic idea and it is emphasized by Cicero40 and Seneca,41 but it

is Plutarch42 who connects it directly with yv&6t, aavrbv. He says

that some people think the Stoics jesting when they claim that the

Wise Man must be not only prudent and just and courageous, but

an orator, a poet, a general, a rich man, and addressed as king; yet

they claim all these things for themselves. But it is not so among.the Gods, for one is the God of War, and another the God of the

Oracle, and another the God of Gain. And then he goes on to say:

"All prerogatives do not belong to all, but one must in obedience

to the Pythian inscription, avrov Kara/jLadeiv. Then he must direct

his efforts toward the one pursuit for which he is naturally fitted,43

and not drag himself toward the imitation of some other type of

life and do violence to nature." Ovid likewise refers to the maxim

with a slightly extended use of this idea in a characteristic passageof his Ars Amatoria. He has been telling of how Venus brings

harmony and joy in her mating of various animals, and he says:44

"While I was singing of this, Apollo appeared of a sudden, and movedwith his thumb the strings of his golden lyre. . . . 'Preceptorof wanton love,' he said, 'come, lead to my shrine thy disciples,

Est ubi diversum fama celebrata per orbem

Littera, cognosci quae sibi quemque iubet.

Qui sibi notus erit, solus sapienter amabit

Atque opus ad vires exiget omne suas.

Cui faciem Natura dedit, spectetur ab ilia;

Cui color est, umero saepe patente cubet;

Qui sermone placet, taciturna silentia vitet;

Qui canit arte canat, qui bibit arte, bibat.'"

39 Letters to Quintus III, 6, 7. Cf. Porphyry, De Abstinentia I, 42. 77 0dAao-<ra

.... 5td TOVTO dr) iravTo, Sexercu, yiyv&vKovva TO eaur^s jueyeflos. . . .

40 De Officiis I, 31 (114). "Suum quisque igitur noscat ingenium. . . ."

41 De Tranq. An. 6, 2. "Et eo inclinandum, quo te vis ingenii feret."

42 De Tranq. An. c. 12-13.

43 elra XPW^ - 1- irpos ei> 6 TTfpvKf. . . . Menander may have much the same

thought in the verses:

TO yvu>6i aavTov 'iariv av TO. Trpdyjuara

iSfls TO. craurou Kal rl aoi iroi'rjTkov. (Stob. Flor. 21, 2.)

44II, 493 ff.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 31

Inasmuch as the Stoics made yv&Qi aavrov the very foundation

of their philosophy and ethics, Epictetus very naturally uses it in

one instance to mean ' know what you can do in the realm of Will.'

The most important thing for each of us, he says, is to have our will

such as it ought to be.45 If we are angry because of what evil-doers

deprive us of, we should learn not to put so much value upon Things.We should not be angry with the man who steals our clothes, for

we would not lose them if we had not had them.46 The tyrant maybind our leg, or cut off our neck, but he cannot bind or take awayour will. For this reason the Ancients passed on the yv&di cravrov*7

We ought, then, he goes on to explain, to practice indifference to

loss and pain in small things, and pass on from little things to greater

until we become invincible like the athlete who after a series of

minor victories wins at Olympia. Nothing in the way of enticement

or money or weather or mood can keep him from going on to con-

quer.48

Knowing the power of one's will, then, and the importanceof developing it, is conceived to be enjoined by the Delphic maxim.

So Augustine teaches that the man who fails in a given situation

because he over-estimates his strength of will, fails through ignoranceof himself. He says of Peter's Denial:

"Quantum sibi assumpserat

Petrus intuendo quid vellet, ignorando quid posset?"49 And in

another passage he says in explaining that we often do not knowhow far our will can avail: "Nempe beatissimus apostolus Petrus

pro Domino animam ponere plane volebat . . . sed quantas vires

haberet, voluntas ipsa nesciebat. Proinde vir tantus . . . se latebat."50

Tv&di aavrbv in the sense of knowing one's ability is thus seen

to have been used by ancient writers as an injunction not to over-

estimate or under-estimate what we can do, to determine our natural

bent, and to be cognizant of the possible achievements of our Will.

These shades of meaning, however, are, as we have said, merely

I, 18, 8.

46 Sec. 11-16. Cf. Ill, 24, 20. rh yap &ya86s kirrw OVK. el5o>s 6s kan\ rls 8'

oldfv TctuTO, eiri\\r]<TiJ,evos OTL <f>9apra ra yevo/Jieva. . . .

47 Sec. 17. 'AXX' 6 rbpavvos 5i7<rei, rl',

r6 ovceXos, dXX* d^eXeT. rl',

rbv rpax^Xov.

rl ovv <o>> dr)<rei, ovd' d<peXei ; TT\V irpoaiptaiv. Sid rouro Trappyye\\ov ol iraXatol r6

48 Sec. 18-23.

49 In John, LXVI. 1. Cf. XXXII, 5 "Nam infirmitatem suam Petrus

nesciebat, quando a Domino quod ter esset negaturus audiebat."

60 De Anima et Eius Origine IV, 11. He also argues that we are ignorant

of ourselves as touching the extent of our memory. Sec. 9-10.

32

specific connotations of the general idea of 'knowing one's meas-

ure'; and this is true also of the use of the maxim in its further

meaning of 'knowing one's place.'51

S1A part of Ausonius' little poem on Chilon is somewhat pertinent in connection

with the theme of the present chapter:

"Commendo nostrum yv&di aeavrdv, nosce te,

Quod in columna iam tenetur Delphica.

Labor molestus iste, fructi est optimi,

Quid ferre possis, quidve non, dinoscere;

Noctu diuque, quae geras, quae gesseris,

Ad usque puncti tenuis instar quaerere.

Officia cuncta, pudor, honor, constantia

In hoc et ulla spreta nobis gloria."

(Ludus Septem Sapientum, 138-145)

CHAPTER IV

TNfi0I SATTON As KNOW YOUR PLACE. ITS RELATION To

When in Aeschylus' play Oceanus advised Prometheus to know

himself, he was, as we have said,1warning him to know his place as

a subject of the new king of the Gods. Now 'knowing one's place'

was one of the meanings of that complex Greek virtue cruppocrvvr},'2'

and because of this phase of similarity it is probable that yv&Qi (TCLVTOV

was often given as a definition of the virtue in the ethical discussions

of Fifth-century Athens. Hence it is that in Plato's Charmides?

when another current definition of oxo^poowr; namely, TO TO, CLVTOV

Trpdrreu/ was seen to fail, because the man who lacks a knowledgeof what he can and cannot do beneficially is not always able to do

his own business, Critias seized upon yv&6i O-CLVTOV. To be sure,

Socrates had virtually put the words into his mouth by using the

phrases ov yiyvfaffK&. ZCLVTOV cos eirpa&v and ayvoet 5' eavTov in his pre-

ceding refutation, but it is also probably safe to assume that Critias

was repeating something which he had heard before. Socrates'

interlocutors usually voiced opinions rife in popular thought and

discussion,4 and besides the statement in the Charmides that the

definition rd CLVTOV irp&TTeiv was borrowed,5 we have as evidence for

the general currency of the two definitions a passage in the Timaeus:6

ev Kal TrdXcu \7TCu TO 7rpdrri*> /cat yv&vai rd re CLVTOV KCLL CCLVTOV trcocppcwi

VLOVU irpoarjKeLv. Moreover, the fanciful way in which Critias goes

on in an attempt to show the identity of yv&Qi O-CLVTOV and o-co<ppocri>j>i7

indicates that he had not given the matter any real thought himself.

The God at Delphi, he says, uses this yv&di (TCLVTOV as a form of address

to his worshippers, which differs from the usual xcupe because the

1 See p. 12.

2 See Aesch. Ag. 1425 & 1664; Plato's Rep. 389D-E; & Laws 696D-E. Also

Shorey's review of Jowett's Translation, A. J. P. XIII. p. 361: "It is only from

this idea of knowing one's place that it (o-co^poawT?) gets the connotation of'

self-

knowledge.'"

3 164D-165A.

4 See Shorey, Unity of Plato's Thought, p. 15.

6 161B-C.

8 72A. See Stallbaum's note: also his Introduction to Charmides, p. 111.

34

God speaks not as man speaks but with a nobler salutation. 7 Andhe says always to every one who enters nothing other than 2co<pp6m.

For TO Tv&di aavTov and TO Zco<pp6m are the same. But men, mis-

taking this salutation for an admonition, added the later sayings

Mrjdev ayav and '77601, irapa S'cmj. Plutarch evidently has this

passage in mind when he says in his E at Delphi:8 "The god, as it

were in greeting, addresses each one of us who comes there with the

Tv&Bi aavrov a salutation in no -way inferior to xatpe." Somescholars have used these passages in trying to determine the position

of the inscriptions at Delphi,9 but it is better, doubtless, to regard

Critias' words not as in any sense historical, but as a piece of pretty

fancy introduced for literary purposes. As the dialogue proceedsPlato treats the subject on the basis of the psychological principle

of self knowledge,10 a treatment which formed the starting-point

of many later disquisitions upon the theme. The connection between

<ru<ppoavvr) and yv&Oi, vavrbv is shown in other passages also, thoughnot often with what we have asserted to be their original pointof contact. Aristotle, however, brings them together in somewhat

this sense in the course of his characterization of the High-mindedman. We recall that he differed from the Little-minded man and

the conceited man, who knew not themselves, in that he had a true

and high sense of his own worth. 11 But to be high-minded, his

worth must be really high, for the man of little worth who deems

himself so is o-o^pw?, not /jiya\6\l/vxos.12

7 For the custom of placing inscriptions at the entrance of Greek dwelling

houses see Diog. Laert. VI, II, 50 & Julian Or. VI, 200B. Cf. also the Salve

on the threshold of a Pompeian house. Bekker, Callus 2, 232 (p. 240 Eng.

Trans.).8

c. 17.

9Lagercrantz (Hermes XXXVI, p. 413 ff.) thinks that Plato's phrase "the

later sayings" indicates that yv&di aavrov was the first in order of all the inscrip-

tions save the E, and he uses this as an argument against Goettling's and Ro-

scher's view that the E was one of the Spruche and that yvutfi. aavrov began a

hexameter line. Roscher in reply (Hermes XXXVI, 485) argues that Plato

means that TvQOi aavrov was first merely in relation to Mrjdev ayav and 'Eyyva,

irapa 8' O.TIJ and not in relation to all the inscriptions. Lagercrantz thinks also

that if the yi>&0t. aavrbv was the greeting of the God to the worshipper, the Ecannot be so construed (p. 417).

10 See Shorey, Unity of Plato's Thought, p. 15 & n., and p. 17.

11 See pp. 17 f.

12 Nic. Ethics IV, 7. 1123b, 5. 6 yap /HKPCOJ> aios Kal TOVTUV dicov tavrbv (Toxppuv ,

d' ov.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 35

A good instance of the use of yv&Bi aavrov by people in general

in this sense of 'knowing one's place' is recorded by Philo Judaeus.In his Embassy to Gains Philo gives an account of the murders

perpetrated by Gaius Caesar against those who were near to him byreason of kinship or influence. Among his first victims was Macro,a man who had befriended Gaius continually in the face of the dis-

trust of Tiberius, and so had helped him to secure the throne. 13

After Gaius became Emperor, Macro pursued him with occasional

advice and admonition a course which at length became irksome

to Gaius and )ed him to put Macro to death. The people, despite

the number of eminent men whom Gaius was removing, tried to makeexcuses for him at first, and yielding to the prejudice against Macro

which Gaius had deliberately sought to create,14

they said that

Macro was "puffed up beyond measure," and that "he did not

thoroughly grasp the Delphic inscription yv&di aavrbv . . . For

what could have made him change the relative positions of Gaius

and himself so as to virtually make himself ruler and Gaius his

subject?"15 Whether yv&di aavrbv was actually on the lips of the

people on the occasion of this incident, or whether it merely came

spontaneously to the pen of Philo in writing the account in his own

way, makes little difference. The setting naturally recalled the

maxim in either case.

The Emperor Julian introduces the apophthegm playfully in the

sense of 'knowing one's place in the presence of superior wisdom'

in one of his letters to lamblichus. 16 He begins the letter by saying:

"We ought in obedience to the Delphic inscription to know our-

selves and not have the face to behave boldly toward a man of such

great fame a man whose mere glance it is hard to return, to say

nothing of meeting him on equal terms when he rouses the harmo-

nious strains of all wisdom (rrjv iravcrcxpov ap^ovLav) ;for if Pan were

to echo his shrill song, every one would stand dumb, even Aristaeus,

and if Apollo should play on his lyre, every man would keep silence,

though he knew the music of Orpheus."

IVcofli aravrov seems to have

been a favorite maxim with Julian, for he discusses it at length in

13 Sec. 32 ff.

" Sec. 57.

16 Sec. 69. ir\kov f<f>v(rr]drj TOV nerpiov TO AeA<puc6j/ jpa/j.fj.a ov oiavtyvo) TO

aavrov . . . rl irad&v UTTTjXdrreTO /cat fjitTtTidei TOV (JLCV virrjKoov avTbv els Ta.l~iv

TOV 8f a&TOKpaTopa Yaiov ds VTTIJKOOV

16Ep. 41:420B.

36

his orations besides bringing it into his letters; and it is interesting

to observe that while in his orations he gives it the philosophic

meanings which it had come to acquire, both in the letter to The-

mistius17 and in this one to lamblichus he uses it with its ordinaryforce.

In the passage in the Timaeus to which we referred above18

Plato so plays upon the word akippovi that he appears to connect

the maxim with the etymological force of <ru<ppo(rvvri also. 19 Heis speaking of the Art of Divination and saying that it is somethingthat belongs not to a man's wisdom, but to a dormant or abnormal

mental state, and the words TO .... yv&vai, . . . eavrov aaxppovi

nova) TrpoariKew mean that to know oneself is possible only for a personin full possession of his faculties. That Plato is giving this meaningto yv&vai eavrov in a spirit of mere word-play becomes the more

apparent when we realize that this is almost the only instance in

ancient literature in which the maxim may be so construed.20 The

negative phrase TO ayvoeiv eavrov, however, was used somewhat

frequently to convey the idea of not being in one's senses a use

more or less colloquial,21

apparently, and quite apart from its other

17 See pp. 27f.

18 P. 33.

19 For (Tutppovvvr] in its etymological sense, see Plato's Prof. 323B & 333C.20 Plato begins the proemium to his Laws of Inheritance (Laws 923A) with

the words: d> <pi\oi, (prjaonev, /cat drcx^ws e^juepot, xa^e7roi/ V/JLLV karw yiyv&o'Kei.i' TO.

vpfTep' OVT&V xpi7A*ra *at irpos ye u;uas auTous, &<nrep /cat r6 rfjs Tlvdlas ypap.ua <ppafei

ra vvv. To press the meaning of mental aberration into his allusion to the maxim

here, however, would be to mistake entirely the highly poetic tone of the passage.21 The one instance of the strictly colloquial use of yv&Qi aavrov in somewhat

this sense occurs in a fragment of Epictetus (For a discussion of the fragmentas a whole see p. 68, n. 55.) d xP^vrV T^ Trapr]yyt\\e TO yv&vcu kavrov,

oifK av kv T0 7rpoaraei Trpoaetxe Ttp ^7rrrpa^i'ai. To recall a heedless xpwfo to

himself with a yv&di GQ.VTOV seems too colloquial, considering the reverence in

which the maxim was held, and we are probably safe in assuming that it was

not at all general to apply it in such ways. For olda with a reflexive used col-

loquially see Libanius IV, 32, where in accusing a certain Eutropius of slandering

him, he says that people may say in applause of his insults e5 T, & OUTOS, TOUT'

fipxwi', TOUT' av-fip, TOUT' et5obs avrov. Libanius also expresses the idea of not know-

ing oneself in the sense of mental unfitness with the verb oI5a rather than yt,yv&<rKw

in this same oration (sec. 4). He is refuting a statement about the folly of old

age, and he says: T) <rv ToXjui^eis et/cetj', ws cXifaei nlv IIXaTooi', eX^pet 5' lo-o/cpaTTjs,

iX^pet 5 Zo^o/cXijs, owe &7aj<pp6z>ei 5 Topylas, OVK j;5et 5' kavr6v 6 Tvavevs e/cet^os.

The Latin phrase "si me novi" was a colloquial expression apparently some-

what allied to the TO ayvoeiv eavrdv of the Greeks. See Horace, Sat. I, 9, 22 ff :

37

connotation as "the opposite of that which the Delphic inscription

urges." Thucydides says of those who survived the Plague that

as soon as they got up forgetfulness of all things seized them and

iiyvbriaav a~<pas re CLVTOVS /cat rous eTrmySetous.22 Aristotle in discussing

voluntary and involuntary crime, enumerates the points about

which a man might be ignorant in committing an involuntary act,

and says:23 airavTa pev ovv raura ovdels av ayvorja-eiev M paivfyj&vos,

8rj\ov 8' cos ov8e rbv irpaTTovTa' TTCOS yap eavTov ye ;

24 The author of the

Epinomis, erroneously ascribed to Plato, when contending that menneed not fear the jealousy of the Gods in concerning themselves

with divine matters, says that the Deity knows that He teaches us

these things, for He would be the most stupid of all if He were igno-

rant of this, and he adds:25 TO \eyonevov yap av, cWcos avr6 avro ayvoei,

Xo.\ewaivov rep 8vva(j.vu> navdavew, d\\' ov avyxaipov avev (pdovov 8ia

6eov aya6$ yevo^evu. So, too, Basil writes to one of his friends:26

aov rbre eTriXr/crojuefla, orav Kai eavTovs ayvor)<TwiJi,v'. The two meanings of

TO ayvoeiv tavTov are brought together in Xenophon's Memorabilia27

where the phrase is used as a definition for ju<ma, but jutma in the

extended sense of not knowing what one thinks he knows. Socrates,

"Si bene me novi, non Viscum pluris amicum,Non Varium fades; ..."

Also Cicero In Verrem II, III, 68: "Turn, cum te ac tuam vitam nosses, in

Siciliam tecum grandem praetextatum filium ducebas. ..." And Pro Sex.

Rose. 142: "Quodsi quis est, qui et se et causam laedi putet, cum Chrysogonus

vituperetur, is causam ignorat, se ipsum probe novit; ..." Cf. Hor. Ep.

I, 18, 1; Ovid. Met. XIII, 840-84; XIV, 356; Petronius, Cena Trim. 58.

Note further the colloquial use of se cognoscit in Virgil, Aeneid XII, 903 ff.:

"neque currentem se nee cognoscit euntem,Tollentemve manu saxumve immane moventem:"

Cf. Ambrose, In. Ps. CXVIII, 3, 30: "Adam, qui se occultare cupiebat, quia

se non agnoscebat."22

II, 49, 8. Lucretius evidently had this passage in mind in his description

of the Plague at Athens (VI, 1213-14):

"Atque etiam quosdam cepere oblivia rerum

Cunctarum, neque se possent cognoscere ut ipsi".23 Nic. Ethics III, 2, lllla, 6.

24 In discussing the same subject Clement of Alexandria says that a manwho commits an involuntary crime ^ ykp avrbv TLS rjjvorjarfv cos KXeojue^s *cai

'A0ajuas ol navevres. . . . (Strom. II, 60.)

25 988B.26Ep. LVI, 74.

"III, 9. 6-7.

38

he says, did not consider aveinvT'qiJKHjvvyv madness, but TO ayvoelv eavrop.

Kal afj.ri

ol8e bo^a^tiv re /ecu o'levdai yiyvuxrKeiv, eyyurdrco juazaas eXoyl^ero elvcu.

While most people call a man mad who fancies that he is so tall

that he must stoop in going through the city gates, or that he is

strong enough to lift houses, they do not call the conceit of knowledge

madness, for they do not recognize it as an abnormality. To Socra-

tes, however, thinking one knows what he does not is not only a

species of madness but an error which yv&Qi aavrov was designed to

correct. 28 Hence the passage is clearly suggestive of the maxim,and the two ideas adhering to TO ayvoeiv eavrov are blended. 29

The earlier relation of yv&di VCLVTOV and aixppo(Tvvr) was, as we have

shown, a comparatively simple one. But as time went on, the

connection of the two in Plato's Charmides, and the Platonic doc-

trine of the Unity of the Virtues gave rise to a tendency amongadmirers of Plato to make yv&Qi aavrbv include not only (ruppoavvr)

in the large30 but other virtues as well. This tendency is seen in the

spurious Platonic dialogue known as the Erastae, where the author

brings forward the maxim as a definition of vuppoavvrj and makes

it include diKaioo-vvri also. Socrates is discussing with two youngmen the question of philosophy, what it is and what its province.

31

The youths reason that the philosopher should be a well-informed

man, able to converse intelligently with physicians and craftsmen

though his knowledge would be less expert than theirs; and in order

to show that the philosopher should ha^e not a second-rate but a

first-class knowledge of the political art, Socrates is made to resort

to an argument which seems rather clumsy. The man who knows

how to punish dogs and horses aright, he argues, knows also how to

make them as good as possible; hence the art which knows how to

punish knows the good from the bad. If a person has this knowledgein the case of the many, he should have it in the case of the one

the self. Now horses or dogs in failing to know good from bad

horses or dogs, fail to know themselves; and so a man who fails to

28 See c.V.

29 So Stobaeus (Ed. Eth. II, 6, 5, 124) says of the Stoics: tri 5 \kyovai TTO.VTO.

<f>av\ov (in contrast with TOV <ro<pov) iJiaive&dai, ayvoiav exoira avrov /ecu TWV /ca.9' avrdv

OTTcp e0Ti fjLavia. TTJV 8e ayvotav elvai kvavriav naniav rfj <ra}<ppo(rvvr}.

30 See Ale. 7, 133C: TO 5 yiyv&aKew O.VTOV co/xoXoyoD/uei' a&<ppo<rbvri}> elvai]See

also Wilamowitz's Apollo, trans, by Murray, page 41: "Everything implied in

that specially Greek way of thinking which is summed up by the untranslatable

word auxppovvvii belongs to the yv&0t aavrov of the God."31 135A ff.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 39

know good men from bad men would not know whether he himself

were good or bad. This avrov ayvoelv is w aruppovelv and converselyTO eavrov yiyv&aKtiv is au<ppoveli>. "This, it seems, forsooth," Socrates

says, "is what the inscription at Delphi commands to practice

aaxppoavvri and diKcuoavvrj, for the virtue by which we know how to

punish aright is SIKCUOO-WTJ and that by which we know ourselves is

(raxppoavvr], and if to know how to punish involves a knowledge of

oneself, diKaioavvrj and a^<ppoavvrj are the same." "Cities are well-

governed when the wrong-doers give justice," he goes on to say, andso connects o-uppoavvrj and biKaiovvvT] with the political art, of which

the true philosopher must have superior knowledge.32 The essential

connection between justice and o-axppoavvr} was expressed by Plato

in the Laws, and the unity of the Virtues in general was a favorite

Platonic thought, but in none of the genuine dialogues do we find

their unity proved by recourse to the kind of reasoning employedhere. The tendency to relate the four cardinal virtues to yv&di. aavrov

became distinctly marked in the Neo-Platonists, however, and the

Erastae may be regarded as in a sense a connecting link between

them and the Charmides.

Porphyry says in his work on IVcofli Sauro^ that we never hear

<ru(ppov6L used in the sense of troo^e ri]v <pp6vr](nv, although (Tutppoavvrj is

a certain aaoppoavvrj', if we did so regard it, however, we would discuss

r6 (ppoveiv and the cause of TO (ppovdv, which is vovs, and it is therefore

necessary to know one's essence. 34Porphyry thus connects (ppovrjais

with ffuppoavvrj and both with yv&Qi aavrov. So Gregory Thau-

maturgus connects the three somewhat similarly in his In OrigenemOratio Panegyrica when he says of Origen: "He taught us to be

wise (<ppoveiv) and to be with self, and to wish and try to know our-

selves. This indeed is the noblest function of philosophy, which is

ascribed to the most oracular of the gods, since it is an ail- wise

command the Tv&Bi aavrov. . . . This is well said by the Ancients

to be the divine (ppovrjo-is. . . . He taught us also ffuypovziv KCLL

avdptfevQaL, and by o-co<>poi>eu> he meant keeping this (ppovrjvis of the

soul knowing itself." Olympiodorus says that to know oneself

32 138A.

33 696C.

84 Stob. Flor. 21:27.

35 C. XI.

40

is a part of every virtue,36 and he explains how it is a part of

and <pp6vrj(Tis and avdpia and dLKonoavvrj in turn.37 That jv&Qi aavrbv

gave courage is the purport of Philostratus' account of a conversation

between Apollonius of Tyana and Demetrius regarding the dangerthat Apollonius was in at the hands of Domitian. Apollonius

anticipated that Demetrius would advise him to go into hiding where

he was not known, and he said:38 "I think that the wise man should

do nothing privately. . . . And whether the Pythian inscription

is the command of Apollo himself, or of some man who knew himself

soundly and therefore made it a maxim for all, it seems to me that

the wise man in knowing himself and keeping his intelligence at hand

should not cower before any of the things which most people fear."

If self-knowledge is a part of every virtue,39 then conversely a lack

of virtue implies a lack of self-knowledge, and this is expressed by

Apuleius when in reviewing Plato's types of character corresponding

to the degenerate forms of states,40 he says of the worst the tyrant

type "Hunc talem nunquam in agendis rebus expedire se posse

non solum propter inscientiam sed quod ipse etiam sibimet sit igno-

tus41 et quod perfecta malitia seditionem mentibus pariat."

36 In Ale. I, Vol. II, p. 214 ed. Creuzer. 3Xws y&p r6 yiv&aKtiv eavr6v

Aper^s eon. . . .

37 Hierocles in his Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, pp.

64-65, also discusses the virtues and relates them to yv&9i aavrov.

38Apoll. of Ty. VII, 14, 137. kyw ^you/zen TOV ao<p6v wdev idiq. nr)8' }<?' kavrov

irpa.TTLv . . . /cat etre 'ATroXXawos avrov r6 Uvdol 7pa/x/xa CITC &v8pos ityi&s tavrdv

yiyvdiXTKdW K.a.1 irapaaTaTrjv ^x }V r v caurou vovv /i^r' av Trrrj^ai n &v oi TroXXoi. . . .

39 Virtue is said to know itself (Cicero De Amicitia XXVI) and Wisdomcannot be ignorant of itself (Cic. Acad. Quaest. II, 8) and self-knowledge is the

only safe criterion of truth (Gregory of Nyssa, In Cant. Cant., Homily III p.

810B vol. 44).40 De Dogmata Plat. II, 16.

41 Cf. the famous verses in Seneca's Thyestes (401-403):

"I1H mors gravis incubat

Qui notus nimis omnibus

Ignotus moritur sibi."

CHAPTER V

SATTON As KNOW THE LIMITS OF YOUR WISDOM

We have said that Alcibiades and Alexander are the stock exam-

ples of men who preeminently did not know themselves. Plato

would have us believe that the one great character who above all

others did know himself was Socrates. The importance which

Socrates attached to the maxim is brought out in a passage in Plato's

Phaedrus to which we shall frequently have occasion to refer. As

Socrates and Phaedrus in their walk along the banks of the Ilissus

draw near to the spot where Boreas was said to have carried off

Oreithuia,1 Phaedrus reminds Socrates of the story and asks him

if he believes it. Socrates replies with the rationalistic interpretation

of the myth which the wise skeptics of the day put forth, but declares

that of such rationalizing there is no end. He has no time for such

things, however, and he gives the reason why "I am not able yet,"

he says, "to know myself, according to the Delphic inscription.

Indeed it appears ridiculous to me to reflect upon alien matters

while I am still ignorant of this. And so bidding Good-bye to these

questions and believing what is thought about them, as I just now

said, I consider not these matters but myself whether I happen to

be some beast more intricate and full of passion than Typho, or a

simpler and more gentle creature, sharing in some divine and less

monstrous destiny."2

If in his life-long search after self-knowledge

Socrates did come to know himself better than most men,3 Plato

maintains that it was because he did not think he knew what he

did not. He says in the Apology that if Apollo is right in declaring

him to be the wisest man, it is because he knows that he has no wis-

dom.4 Wisdom is the virtue that most people have a false conceit

about, he says in effect in the course of that passage in the Phile-

1 229 B ff.

2 Phaedrus 229E-230A. ot> 8i>va/j,ai irw Kara TO Ae\<piKov jpa/j./j,a yv&vai tfj,avT6v.

yeXotcj> drj IJLOI (paiverat TOVTO ert ayvoovvra TO. dXXorpta ano-K^iv. odtv 5i) -xjaipt

raOfa, ireLdofAevos 5e rc3 iso/ju^o/jLevcp vrept avr&v, 6 vvvori e\eyov, (TKOTTCO ov raOra dXX'

etre TI dijplov oy Tvyx^vo} Tu^cows TroXuTrXo/ccorepoi' /cat /j.a\\ov cTriretfuju/icvo

re Ka.1 a.TT\ov<TTepov $oi>, deias TWOS /cat a.TV(f>ov noipas <f>vaei p.Tk-xpv.

3 Note Hippolytus, Adv. Her. I, 18: Zw/cpaTT/s . . . 6s TO yv&di. cravTov irpo-

4 23A-B. See Zeller, Socrates and the Socratic Schools, pp. 122-123, Eng.Trans.

42

bus5 in which he declares that ignorance of self is the opposite of

what the Delphic inscription bids, and discusses the forms which

such ignorance may take. And this false conceit of wisdom, often

designated by a^aOLa, is a conception that runs all through Plato.

We meet it sometimes in definition, sometimes in discussion, and

again we see it exemplified in the very men whom Socrates is trying

to refute. It is defined in the Sophist6 as TO w /caretSora n

L, and in the Symposium7 as TO w 6vra Ka\6v KayaOov fj.rjde

ai>T( elvaL l.avbv. It is discussed in the Sophist* and at greater

length in the Theaetetus* The bigoted Euthyphro, the rhapsodist

Ion, Hippias the Wise, the two sophists in the Euthydemus, and other

characters in greater or less degree, are all afflicted with this djuaflia.

It is truly a universal fault, characteristic not only of the youthful

skeptics,10 of the philosopher-politicians/

1 and of the men who spendtheir time in debate,

12 but of the ordinary artisan as well. 13 This

universal fault Plato shows to be a serious one,14

endangering the

state, threatening religion,15 and leading to crime. 16 Socrates made

it the mission17 of his life to help rid men of it, for cross-examination

and refutation, he claimed, purify the soul of its conceit,18 and those

who would submit thereto made wonderful progress.19 Men knew

that if they talked with Socrates, Plato tells us, they must give an

account of their lives,20 and in his presence even Alcibiades became

humble. 21 If then this false conceit of wisdom, of which Socrates

by his presence and conversation so persistently convicted men,

is, as he maintained, a failure to heed the Delphic maxim, Socrates

5 49A.6 229C.7 204A.8 229 ff.

9 150C ff.

10 Laws 886B.11Euthydemus 305 C.

12 Phaedo 90B-C.13Apology 22C-D.

14 Tim. 86B.15 Laws 886B-E.16 Laws 863 C-D.17Apol. 23B.

"Soph. 230B-D.

19 Thaeet. 150D.20 Laches 187E-188A.

216A-C.

43

himself, who in his ironical affectation of ignorance claimed to

know nothing, and who was too busy to rationalize mythologyuntil he should know what manner of man he was, really obeyed the

God's behest better than did the generality of mankind.

This extended use of yv&6i aavrbv in the sense of 'knowing the

limits of one's wisdom' occurs in the works of three of Plato's con-

temporaries. Xenophon's use of it we have already discussed.22

Aristophanes, as we might expect, refers to it in the Clouds. 23Strep-

siades has proved a sorry pupil in the school of Socrates and is tryingto persuade his son Pheidippides to attend in his place. "What

good could any one learn from them?" Pheidippides asks; and

Strepsiades replies:

ci\r]0ts ; 6<rairep ear' kv avSp&irois

yv&ffy de cravrov cos a/jLadrjs et KOLL

Hermann says of this passage "Haud ego credam, quod Suverino

p. 7 visum est, facile hie tangi illud ab Socrate discipulis commenda-tum yv&8i GOMTQV"'* But it is hard to see how Hermann or anyoneelse who is familiar with Plato should hesitate to agree with Silvern.25

The phrase yvoxry . . . cravrov could scarcely mean anything else

to a Greek ear, and no better catch-words could be found to describe

the Socratic teaching than are contained in the second of the above

verses.

Isocrates also gives this meaning to the Delphic inscription in

his Panathenaicus. The oration really contains an essay within an

essay a long historical account of Athens' greatness which Isocrates

represents himself as having written. When he had finished all

but the conclusion,26 he says, he read it with three or four of his pupils,

and then called in a former disciple who had been used to an oli-

garchical form of government and had been given to praising the

Lacedaemonians, thinking that he would be especially quick to notice

any errors. The man approved the speech in general, but did not

like what had been said about Sparta, and he thereupon made bold

to say that Greece ought to be grateful to Sparta because she had dis-

22 See pp. 37 f.

23 vv. 841-2.24 Note on Nubes, p. 109.25

Starkie, The Clouds of Aristophanes p. 190, weakly says: "possibly, asSilvern (iiber Ar. Wolken, p. 7) suggests, an allusion to the Delphic yvMi aavrdv."

Humphreys, however, declares it "the expansion of the Delphic yv&dt. aavr6v."

(Clouds p. 160). Forman also sees the allusion to the maxim (p. 167).26 Panathenaicus 200.

44

covered the noblest of pursuits and had taught them to others. 27

Isocrates in turn proceeds to confute this idea by objecting to the

ends of Spartan education and her attitude toward her neighbors;

and at length his critic, who has dared to interpose but once, goes

away "a wiser man with the sails of his opinion furled, having ex-

perienced" Isocrates says, "that which is written at Delphi, and

knowing himself and the character of the Lacedaemonians better

than before."28 It is evident that the man had been afflicted with

that conceit of wisdom which the Platonic Socrates so deplores, and

"knowing himself" means that he had come to see the worthlessness

of his opinions.

The Socratic theme of man's proneness to think he knows what

he does not became something of a tag among later writers,29though

it is not often again associated so closely with the maxim.30

There is at least a hint of this conceit of wisdom, however, in the

story told of Hipparchus in the spurious Platonic dialogue which

bears his name, and it is essentially the purport of a passage in Dio

Chrysostom. Tv&Qi cravrov is introduced in the Hipparchus, as in

Plato's Protagoras, not so much for the sake of its own meaning as

by way of humorous illustration in connection with another apoph-

thegm. Socrates and his interlocutor are discussing the love of

Gain, and Socrates is accused of deceiving his companion by turning

things topsy-turvy in his arguments.31 He replies that in that case

he would not be heeding Hipparchus, who set up Herms in every

deme, bearing epigrams of his .own composing, that the people mightnot marvel at the wise inscriptions at Delphi the Tv&Qi o-avrov and

the M.7}5& ayav and the rest but think the sayings of Hipparchus wiser

and flock to him to learn more.32 One of these epigrams of Hippar-chus contained the injunction w (piXov ea7rdra,

33 which is the point

27 Sec. 202.

58 Sec. 230. 6 ph yap air-fiei ^popi/wbrepos yeyevrjuevos Kal <rw&TTa\/j.ej>r)i>

Tfy Siavoiav . . . Kal ireirovd&s TO yeypan/jievov & AeX^ois, avr6v r' tyvwK&s Kal rty

haKtbaL/jLOvlcov <f>v(Tiv fj.a\\ov rj irporepov.

29See, for instance, Philo Judaeus, De Plant. 81; De Ebriet. 162-3. Lactantius,

De Ira Dei, I.

30 Hieronymus brings the two together in one of his epistles (LVII, 12):

'"Atque utinam Socraticum illud haberemus 'Scio quod nescio' et alterius

sapientis . . . Teipsum intellige."

31 228A.32 228E.83 229A.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 45

of Socrates long digression about him and his service to Athenian

culture. As we have said, the passage is half-humorous, and weare tempted to imagine a touch of irony in Hipparchus' so esti-

mating his own wisdom as to count his inscriptions superior to the

revered ^v&di aavrov, although we must not go beyond the text in

pressing the inference.

The passage, or rather story, in Dio Chrysostom illustrates man's

presumption in trying to know other men and God34 before knowing

himself, and this is a phase of the false conceit of wisdom. As

Diogenes was going along the road from Corinth to Athens one day,he fell in with a man who had started out to consult the oracle at

Delphi, but as his slave had run away he was going back to Corinth

to try to find him. 35 After talking with the man about the unwis-

dom of trying to recapture a bad slave, the question of the value

of consulting the oracle came up.36

Diogenes said he did not object

to the man's making use of the oracle if he was able to do so, but it

is hard to make use of either God or man if one does not know how;and then he proceeded to ask questions in true Socratic fashion

with illustrations from animals, cithara-playing, and the like, until

he brought the man to admit that he who is ignorant of man is

incapable of using man, and accordingly he who is ignorant of himself

would not be able to use himself. Then Diogenes asks: "Have you

already heard, then, of the inscription at Delphi the Yv&Qi aavrov?""Certainly,

"the man replies; and the conversation proceeds:

37 " Nowis it not evident that the God gives this command to all on the groundthat they do not know themselves?

""Probably." "And you for-

sooth would be one of the all?" "Yes." "Then not even youknow yourself at all?" "It seems so to me." "And in that youare ignorant of yourself you are ignorant of man, and not knowingman you are unable to make use of man; but while you are incapableof making use of man, you try to make use of God!"

34 See pp. 94 f.

35 Or. X, 295R.36 301R.37 303R.

CHAPTER VI

SATTON As KNOW YOUR OWN FAULTS

In the Phaedrus passage to which we have referred1 Socrates

said that he considered himself to see whether he happened to be

some beast more intricate and full of passion than Typho, or whether

he was a gentler and more simple creature, sharing in some divine

and less monstrous destiny. This is giving to yv&8i aavrbv the sense

of knowing one's soul, and includes a knowledge of one's disposi-

tion of one's temper and spirit. From this conception it is not a

far cry to the thought that a man should know his own faults; and

in time, through the influence of the Stoics probably, this force came

to be definitely attached to the apophthegm. Sometimes we find

it so used where the individual alone is concerned, but more often

the emphasis is upon knowing our own faults rather than those

of other people. As an instance of the former L. Schmidt2 cites the

questions of the Pythagoreans:3

707 Trape/fy; rl 5' epea; rl }JLOL bkov

OVK crcXeo-^; but while we have abundant evidence that yv&Bt, aavrbv

was one of the watchwords of the school,4 and know that the dis-

ciples were supposed to pass in retrospect their daily conduct,5

we do not happen to find the maxim applied in this connection in the

little Pythagorean literature extant. There is a possible suggestion

of it in a pertinent passage in Seneca, however, and Galen and Plu-

tarch introduce it definitely with this connotation.

Seneca in one of his Epistles quotes with approval a statement

of Epicurus "Initium est salutis notitia peccati" and says

himself6 "Nam qui peccare se nescit, corrigi non vult. . . . Ideo

1 See p. 41.

2 Ethik der alien Griechen, vol. II, p. 395: "Vielfach dachte man dabei

nur an die Beobachtung der eigenem Fehler. Unter den Mitgliedern der pytha-

goreischen Schule gait es als Vorschrift sich tagtaglich die Frage vorzulegen,

welche in dem gern erwahnten Verse . . . ihren Ausdruck gefunden hatte:

Worin hab '

ich gefehlt? Was gethan? Welche Pflichten verabsaumt?"

3Diog. Laert. VIII, I, 19 (22). Plut. De Curiositate c. 1.

4 Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans 14-15. Stob. Flor. 108, 81. lam-

blichus, Life of Pythagoras XVIII: 83.

5 See Cicero, De Senectute 38. Ausonius VII, 3. De Viio Bono

'A7r6<pa<ns, esp. vv. 14-15.

Ep. Mor. Ill, 7, 10.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 47

quantum potes, te ipse (co)argue, inquire in te: 7 accusatoris primumpartibus fungere, deinde iudicis, novissime deprecatoris.

" Galen

says in his chapter entitled De Propriorum Animi cuiusque A/ectuumDignotione et Curatione: 8 " We see all men fancying that they are free

from error altogether, or that they make merely a few slight mistakes

in judgment, and this is especially true of those whom others think

err the most. . . . Those who allow others to reveal their opinionabout what sort of people they are, I have seen make the fewest

mistakes, but those who take it for granted that they are good,without leaving it to others to judge, stumble most seriously and

most frequently. So while as a lad I thought that the Pythian com-

mand to know oneself was needlessly praised, and that it was not such

a great saying, I later found that men's praise of it was just." Galen

hints here at what he says explicitly farther on that the way to

know one's faults is to allow an impartial critic to tell us the truth

about them. But our self-love stands in the way, and self-love is

fed by flattery.9 "The flatterer," Plutarch says,

10 "is likely to be

an enemy to the Gods and especially to the Pythian; for he alwaysacts counter to the yv&Oi o-avrov, deceiving each of us with reference

to himself, and causing self-ignorance. He makes a man ignorantof both his good and bad qualities to the extent of degrading his

good points into failures and imperfections, and his bad ones into

something irremediable." Farther on in this same essay Plutarch

exhorts the reader to do away with his self-love and conceit, for these

serve to make him an easier prey to flattery."If we obey the God,

"

he goes on to say, "and learn that the yv&Qi o-avrov is all-importantfor each of us, and if at the same time we see that there are countless

failures to attain the Good in our nature and rearing and education,

while much that is reckless and bad is mixed in with our actions and

words and experiences, we shall not so easily place ourselves in the

Flatterer's path."n

7 Summers, Select Letters of Seneca, notes, p. 197 says: "Inquire in te,

like (Tranq. 6.2) se ipsum aestimare, a variant for yvStfi aavTov (te Nosce

94,28)."8 Vol. V.c. II, p. 3-4, Kuhn.9 The effect of flattery in blinding men to their faults is distinguishable

from its effect in making them think themselves more powerful than they are.

Hence its connection with yv&Ot atLvrbv here differs from that indicated in c. II.

10 De Discernendo Adulatore et Amico, c. 1.

11c. 25.

48

Our proneness to see others' faults rather than our own is indicated

by the author of the Magna Moralia. 12 He says:"Since then it

is very hard, as some of the Wise have declared, to know oneself

we are unable to contemplate ourselves from within ourselves;

and because we are unable to know ourselves, we evidently do

unwittingly the very things for which we find fault with others." 13

We next meet this idea in connection with the maxim in a humorous

bit of word-play in Horace's Satire on our Intolerant Judgment of

Others:

"Maenius absentem Novium cum carperet, 'Heus tu,'

Quidam ait, 'ignoras te, an ut ignotum dare nobis

Verba putas?' 'Egomet mi ignosco,' Maenius inquit."14 "

While all commentators recognize the play on ignoras, ignotum and

ignosco, and the general sense of the passage, no one seems to have

called attention to the fact that"ignoras te" is the opposite of

7*>co0t o-avTov. Seneca puts the thought vigorously in his De Vita

Beata:15 "Have you time to seek out another's faults," he asks, "andto disclose your opinion of any one? ... Do you observe another's

pimples when you are covered with numerous sores? This is as if

some one should ridicule the moles or warts on some very beautiful

person, while he is being consumed by the cruel mange himself. . . .

Will you not rather look at your own faults?. . . Are human conditions

such that even if statum vestrum parum nostis, you have sufficient

time to wield your tongue to the reproach of your betters?" The

phrase "Statum vestrum . . . nostis" is certainly a reminder of yv&Qi

(ravTov, but again it is Plutarch who uses the exact words of the maximwith this application. He tells us in his De Inimicorum Utilitate of

how when Plato was in company with men of disorderly character,

he was wont to ask himself Mi? irov ap' eyu TOLOVTOS', "If he whocalls into reproach the life of another," Plutarch goes on to say,

12 This was probably written as early as the 3rd century B. C. See Burnet,

Ethics of Aristotle, Intro, p. XI.13

II, 15. 1213a, 14 ff.

"Hor. Sat. I, 3, 22-23.

15VII, 27, 4-6. Cf. Terence Heaut. Tim. 503-505:

"Ita comparatam esse hominum naturam omniumAliena ut melius videant et diiudicent

Quam sua!"

Also vv. 922-23:

"Nonne id flagitiumst, te aliis consilium dare,

Foris sapere, tibi non posse te auxiliarier?"

49

shall "straightway consider his own and correct it ... he will derive

some advantage from the rebuke. . . A man who is going to censure

another ought not to be clever, and loud-voiced, and hasty, but he

should be above reproach and without offence; for upon no one is the

God so likely to have enjoined the yv&di cavrov as upon him who is

going to find fault with another." 16

While the Ancients had many ways of expressing the thoughtcontained in our New Testament figure of the beam and the mote,

17

probably the oldest and most common was Aesop's fable of the two

sacks. "Juppiter placed upon us two sacks," the fable reads:"the one laden with others' faults he hung before our heart; the other,

filled with our own, he placed behind our back. And so it is that

we cannot see our own evil deeds, but condemn others when theyfail." 18 This fable is referred to with particular frequency amongthe Latin poets. Horace alludes to it in his Satire on the Stoic

paradox that all save the Wise Man are mad:

"Dixerit insanum qui me, totidem audiet, atque

Respicere ignoto discet pendentia tergo."19

16 De Inimicorum Utilitate c. 5. The last clause reads: ov8tvl yap OVTUS eotxe

TrpoaraTTeiit 6 6tos, cos rcjj /j.e\\ovTi ^/kytiv erepcw, TO yv&Qi cravTov. Cf. De Audiendo

VI, 40 D-E, where he quotes the same query of Plato's, and says that while it

is easy to blame our neighbor, it is useless and idle unless one corrects and guards

against like faults in himself. Cf. also De Cohibenda Ira c. 16 (463E) & De Curio-

sitate c. 2. Cf. also Basil Hex. IX, 6: rc3 OVTI yap eot/ce -KO.VTWV elvai. xa\iruTarovIO.VTOV k-jnyvdvai . . . rjn&v 6 vovs 6ecos TO a\\6Tpiov ap.o.pT^p.a K.aTa&\kirwv /3pa56s

<TTI 7rp6s TT\V T&V oiKfioiv eXaTTcojuaro)// firiyvoia'Lv.

17 For Greek and Roman expressions, see the two from Seneca cited above.

Also Horace, Sat. I, 3, 73-74:

"Qui ne tuberibus propriis offendat amicum

Postulat, ignoscet verrucis illius."

And Petronius Satyricon, 57: "In alio peduclum vides, in te ricinum non vides."18 A translation of Phaedrus IV, 9. Babrius' version (no. 66) reads:

Qe&v Upofj.'rjdevs -r\v ns, dXXd TUV

TOVTOV TrXavaaOal pavi Sea-iroT

avdpo)Trov l/c yrjs' e/c 5e TOV 5uco

*cpjud(7(u tpepovTa (pacn T&V kv avdp&irois

K.O.K&V ye/j,ovcras, rrjv irpo&a) nev bdvciwv

dtofjL

/SXeTrew' dxpt/Scos, ayvoeiv 6e rds OIKOI.

See also Seneca De Ira II, 28, 8 & Plut. Crass. 32.

19 Hor. Sat. II, 3, 298-99. Kiessling and Dillenberger see here a reference

to "caudam trahat," v. 52, and Orelli-Mewes and Rolfe give alternative explana-

tions, but surely the allusion to the fable is perfectly apparent.

50 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

And Catullus uses it in writing of the poet Suffenus, who was never

so happy and proud of himself as when he was writing verses. "Ofcourse we all make the same mistake,

"Catullus reflects, "and there

is no one whom you cannot see a Suffenus in something."

"Suus cuique attributus est error

Sed non videmus manticae quod in tergo est." 20

Persius brings the fable into his fourth Satire a poem of which

Gildersleeve says: "The theme of the satire is contained in the

closing verses. It is the Apollinic yv&Qi o-avrov."2l The first part

of the poem is very obviously based upon the Alcibiades I, and the

thought of the maxim continues as the ideas grow more general.

"Ut nemo in sese temptat descendere, nemo,Sed praecedenti spectatur mantica tergo!"

22

the poet exclaims, and then he goes on to say in effect: "You ask

about a certain rich man's property and you hear him criticised

for his miserliness, but your own luxury and bad habits are criti-

cised also. We slay others, and in turn expose our limbs to the

arrows. This is the rule of life: this is its lesson. We try to conceal

our defects, and give credence when men speak well of us, but their

praise amounts to little if we are guilty of avarice and wrong."And in conclusion he says:

"Tecum habita: noris23 quam sit tibi curta supellex."

While yv&0L (ravrov is not expressed here in so many words, the poemas a whole, and the verses we have quoted in particular, seem based

upon it, and it is probably not too much to say that the fable of the

two sacks and the maxim meet in the above couplet. Conningtonrenders the verses freely: "None of us knows himself. Every one

thinks only of his neighbor";24 and Gildersleeve says: "The thought

is simply noscere se ipsum."25

The maxim and the fable meet again in Galen also. He sayshe is going to tell how one can learn of his faults, "encouraginghim who is familiar with this inscription and is feeling it incumbent

20 Catullus 22, 15-21.

21 The Satires of Persius p. 141.

22 vv. 23-24.

M Certain MSS. have "Tecum habita ut noris". . . .

24Persius, with trans, and com. by Connington, ed. by Nettleship. (3rd ed.

revised) p. 79.

26Page 147.

51

upon him to seek a way by which one can recognize himself in error

(eavrov . . . yvuplfcw anapTavovTa)" and he adds: dvo yap, cbs

"AKTCOTTOS cXe-ye, irrjpas e^rj^neda TOV rpax^Xou, TCOV pkv dXXorpia;j> rriv

irpocra), T&V idluv 5e Trjv oirLvb)'26 We have already anticipated Galen's

application of the fable that since we can see each other's faults

but not our own, we may learn of ours by being told them by someone else, provided we conquer our self-love, and can find as judgean acquaintance who neither loves us nor hates us.27

M C. II, in vol. V, p. 6, ed. Kuhn.27 C. III.

CHAPTER VII

SATTON As KNOW You ARE HUMAN AND MORTAL

In Pindar's Third Pythian Ode we find expressed one of the

commonplaces of Greek thought in the verses: 1

XP1? ra eoiKora Trap daL/JLOvuv juaoTi>ejuei>, OVCLTOIS (ppacrlv,

yvovra TO Trap 7ro56s, o'ias eijuez> auras.

The scholiast upon the passage says:" This is similar to the yv&Qi vavTov

of Chilon, meaning that we are by nature mortal."2 But it is not at.

all likely that Pindar had the apophthegm in mind here, for it is not

until the days of Menander that the two are definitely brought

together. The injunction to think mortal thoughts, however,

to recognize our human limitations and know that we must die

is as old as Archilochus, who says:

yiywffKe 8' olos /Wjuos avdpuirovs e%t.3

And the tragic and comic poets yes, and the prose writers too

reiterate the theme. Sometimes they emphasize the thought that

we are only human beings, subject to human vicissitudes, and so

must not think too highly of our human powers; sometimes theydwell upon the thought that death awaits us; and again, as in the

above passage from Pindar, the two ideas are both expressed. Theyare but two shades of the same conception, really, and they are

never far apart. Sophocles has the first shade of meaning chiefly

in mind when he says that Ajax brought his sufferings upon himself,

ov KCL

1III, 59-60.

2 Vol. II, p. 76 ed. Drachmann: onoiov T$ XtAojj>os a.tro<(>6tyIJ.O.TI

aavrov. TO dt 6\ov, on OvrjTol ire<f>vKaiJ,fv.

3Anthologia Lyrica frag. 62, v. 7, ed. Bergk-Hiller.

4Ajax. 777. Cf. Eur. Frag. 963 ed. Nauck:

o a' e&irapei iJ,eiov $ xpe&v tppovtiv

/j,rjd' rjv TL (rujujSf) Svaxepes, SouXou Tra\iv

dXX' avros alei H'LUVC rrjv crauroO cpvatv

a<pfav /StjSaicos ciorre xPvaros kv irvpi.

Cf. also Her. I, 207; Pindar, Isth. V, 16, & Nem. XI, 15; Aesch. frag. 159, Nauck.

Euripides Bacchae 199, 395-6, 1002-1004; Iph. at Aulis 31; frag. 79, Nauck.

Isoc. I, 21; Dem. Against Leptines 161. Diphilus frag. 106, ed. Koch vol. II,

p. 574. Cato, frag. II, 2. p. 26. ed. Hanthal:

"An di sint caelumque regunt, ne quaere doceri;

Cum sis mortalia quae sint mortalia, cura."

53

And with similar feeling the Romans sought to remind the victorious

general at his triumph that he was only human, for the slave who

stood behind him on the triumphal car holding a golden crown over

his head kept saying: "Respice post te: hominem te memento." 5

The other meaning the idea that death is before us is clearly

expressed by Heracles' words in Euripides' Alcestis?

TO. 6vrjTa irpay^ar' oladas r]V ext <pi)<riv ]

ttTTttO't KCLTdcLVeiV

KOVK eCTTL dv7)T&V OGTIS ee7TlO'TaT(U

TTJV avpLOV fj,e\\ov(Tav el jStcotrerat'7

A good instance of the juxtaposition of the two ideas occurs in a

fragment of Democritus: 8~fivu><jK.tiv xptwv avOpuirlvriv ^IOTY^V atpavprjv re

eov<rav /cat 6\i,yoxpbviov. . . . And when the word dvrjTa is used it always

gives the added suggestion of death, even if the emphasis of the

sentence as a whole is upon our humanity rather than upon our

mortality. For example, Sophocles says in one of his fragments:9

TTCOS dfjr' eyuy' av dvyros <K. dvrjrrjs re <pvs

Atos yvoliJLr]i> ev (ppoveiv <ro<p&Tepos ',

and in another:10

KCL\OV (ppovelv rov dvyrov avdp&iroLs tcra.

So Pliny implies the one shade of meaning while expressing the

other when he says: "dum infirmi sumus tune deos, tune hominem

esse se meminit." 11 We naturally look for this commonplace not

only in the literature, but among the sepulchral inscriptions, and

we find it frequently in both the Greek and the Latin collections.

The passer-by is repeatedly enjoined to know the end of life,12 or to

6Tertullian, Apol. 33.

6 vv. 780 ff.

' Cf. Philemon frag. 107, Koch II, p. 512.

s 285 Diels.

9481, Nauck.

10Frag. 321. Bentley ascribes to Epicharmus the quotation in Aristotle's

Rhetoric II, 21, 6: BVO.TO. xP'n rdv dvarov, OVK ada.va.Ta. TOP 6varbv <ppovv. Cf. Soph,

frag. 531:0yaTA <ppoveiv XP1) OVTIT^V <pvaiv. . . .

Eur. Alcestis 799: 6vras 51 OvyTovs Qvt\ra. Kal <ppovtiv xpe&v >

11

Ep. VII, 26.

12Epigrammata Graeca ex Lapidibus Conlecta ed. Kaibel II, 303 & 344; IV, 533.

54

remember that he is mortal,13 and a certain Greek says of himself:

IJ,r)8ev ayav (ppovewv, 6vrjra 5e iravQ' opo&v rj\6ov . . . ,14

The inscription on the tomb of Sardanapulus, according to Athenaeus,was in part as follows:15

eu etScos on 6vr)Tos ecpvs vbv Qvpbv ac^

repTro/xews flaXir/ov Qavbvri <roi ofms onjcns.

Kai yap 70? (77ro66s ci/u, Nlvov fjLtyaKrjs /3a(riXei;<7as'

To multiply instances further were tedious, but it is interesting

to see that yv&dt, aavrov at length took on these two additional and

interrelated meanings of knowing that we are human and knowingthat we must die. That it should do so seems natural, for the idea

that we are all subject to human limitations calls for only a slight

extension of the idea of knowing our own limits in ability and achieve-

ment as compared with other men. But the connection with yv&di,

aavroit was probably due rather to the influence of the Stoics in

their claim that the maxim was the foundation of philosophy, and

to their insistence to an unprecedented degree upon our cultivating

an attitude of impassivity toward misfortune and sorrow and death,

by reminding ourselves that these things are an inevitable part of

the human lot.16 That this connotation was general and not merely

literary is suggested by the mosaic floor of a small tomb found west

of the Appian Way at Rome,17

bearing the figure of a skeleton with

the words TNttGI SATTON written in large, bold letters underneath.

In studying the specific passages in the literature in which the apoph-

thegm was given this force, we may pass by several extracts given byStobaeus in his chapter on rV0i Sauro^,

18 inasmuch as, like the

passages cited above, they do not contain the words of the maxim.

"Carmina Sepuhhra Latina ed. Cholodniak, 435, 790, 1323, 1324. Antho-

logia Latina II, 2, 1492. The word memini is regularly used in these inscriptions.

However, no. 1319 ed. Cholodniak, reads: "Cogitato te homin(em) esse et scito

moriendu(m) 'st."

" Kaibel V, 615.

18 Athenaeus VIII, 14.

16Epictetus I, 18; Seneca, Nat. Quaest. Ill, Praef. 15.

"This mosaic is in the Thermae Museum. See Helbig's Guide Vol. 2, no.

1044, p. 222 (Eng. trans.). See also Bull. dell. Inst. 1866, p. 164. For the

use of skeletons to remind men of the transitoriness of human life see Petronius,

Cena Trim. 35, and Lowe's note (p. 28). Note also the Boscoreale Cups (Mau's

Pompeii p. 381-2, Eng. trans.) and the mosaic table top with skull and other

symbols found at Pompeii (Mau p. 399).18 Flor. 21; 1.3.4.

55

The words are contained, however, in a pertinent fragment of Men-ander's:19 "When thou dost wish to know thyself what thou art,"

he says, "look at the tombs as thou dost pass along the street. In

them lie the bones and the light dust of men of kings, and tyrants,

and wise men, and men greatly exalted by reason of their birth,

or fame, or personal beauty. And then the time for enjoying these

proved all too short. A common grave claimed them all, mortals

that they were. Looking to these things, know thyself what

thou art."

Seneca in his Consolation to Marcia20 for the death of her son

dwells upon the frail and mortal nature of man in an eloquent pas-

sage. He says in part: "Mortal you were born, and you have givenbirth to mortals. 21

. . . Your son has died that is, he has comedown to that end toward which all whom you think happier than

your offspring are hastening.22 Hither comes with uneven step all

that throng which contends in the forum, takes seat in the theatre,

and prays in the temples; and those whom you cherish and those

whom you despise are made equal in one common dust. In view

of this, manifestly, was that Nosce Te ascribed to the Pythian oracle.

What is man?22 A kind of fragile vessel, broken at the slightest

toss. . . . What is man? A weak and delicate frame, unprotected,

defenseless in himself, in need of help from without, subject to all

the buffets of fortune. ..." And so he goes on. Plutarch writes

19Frag. 538, Koch III, p. 161:

8rav eldevai deXys creavrov OGTIS el,

/uL^\e\^OV els TO. IJ.VTlp.ad' O)S 65oi7TOpetS,

kvraW evear' bar a. re Kal Koixprj K6vts

avSp&v /Sao'iXeooi' Kal rvpavvojv Kal <ro<f>v

Kal fj.eya (ppovovvrcov eirl yevet Kal xP'hfJLacnv

avr&v re 56# Kairl KaXXei (rcojuarwp .

K<J.T' obbev afrrots r&v 5' eirfipKevev XP^OS.

KOIVOV rbv q.8i]v e(rx v'

1 Tro-vres flporol.

irpos ra.W bp&v yivwaKe aavrbv oans el.

Cf. Ambrose Hex. VI, 8, 51. Respice in sepulchra hominum et vide quid ex te

nisi cinis et ossa remanebunt, hoc est, ex corpore tuo

20VI, XI, 1-3.

21 Cf. the oft-quoted remark of Anaxagoras upon hearing of the death of his

son: fjdei.v Qvt\rbv yevi>rj<ras. Plut. De Tranq. An. c. 16 (474D).

22 Cf. Euripides, frag. 418 Nauck:

JUT/5'

56

in somewhat similar strain in his Consolation to Apollonius23 that

he who resents his own death or the death of his children has evidently

forgotten that man is mortal, and that his children are likewise

mortal, lent him for a time. And he continues: "It is not possible

for any one in his senses to be ignorant of the fact that man is a

mortal creature and that he is born to die. . . . These two of the

Delphic inscriptions are exceedingly necessary for life the Tv&di

aravTov and the M^5^ ayav, for on these all else depends. And theyare in accord and harmony with each other, and through the one

the force of the other seems to be revealed. For in knowing oneself

there is included the Mrjdev ayav, and in the Mr)5ev ayav the yivkintew

eavrov. . . He who has these in mind as precepts of the Pythianoracle will be able to harmonize the experiences of life readily and

to bear them successfully, while he looks to his own nature, and is

neither exalted with undue arrogance in prosperity, nor dejected

and given to wailing and lament through weakness of soul and the

fear of death implanted in us."

Aelian tells the story24 of how after Philip had conquered the

Athenians at Chaeronea, he commanded a slave to remind him early

in the morning that he was human, and he would not leave the

house nor let any one in to see him until the slave had shouted this

to him three times. Alexander, moreover, despite his assumed

divinity, is said to have remarked upon regaining his strength after

a long illness that he was none the worse for it; "for virenvnve . .

^uas 17 voaos AW) M7a vpovelv cos Ovrjrovs 6*>ras.25 He is represented by

Lucian,26

however, as carrying much of his undue pride with him

into the Lower World. When he first arrived there Philip greeted

him with the words: "This time, Alexander, you cannot deny that

you are my son; for you would not have died if you had been Am-

23c.28, 116B-C. 29. The Greek reads in part:

ov yap kon <ppkvas exo^ras avQp&irov ayvoelv, on 6 ap0pa>7ros $6v kern dvijTdv, obd' OTL

ykyovtv els r6 airodaveiv. . . . Al>' kffrl T&V AcX^t/caJy ypapnaTuv TO. /J.O.\I<TT' avay-

Ka.t6TO.Ta Trpbs TOP filov, TO TvtJoOi aavTov Kal TO Mi}5p ayav ex TOVTUV yap ffpTTjrcu /cai

TaXXa TravTa, raura yap kanv dXXi^Xots crw(08a /cat <Tv/j,<f>a)va, Kal 8ia daTepov eot/cc SiyXoD-

CT0ai Kara bvvaiJ.iv. "Ep re yap r<3 yivoxrKeiv eavTov irepuxfTai TO Mr)8lv ayav, Kal kv TOVTQ

24VIII, 15. Quoted in part by Stobaeus on IVatfi VavTov (Flor. 21, 6.)

25 Stob. Flor. 21:15.26Dialogues of the Dead XIV. Lucian speaks of how prone men are to forget

that they are mortal in Charon, 8 & 17; Menippus 12, and elsewhere, but he uses

aavTov in this connection only here.

57

men's." "Now that you have died," he says farther on,27 "do you

not suppose that there are many who will mock at your pretended

divinity, when they see the corpse of the God lying before them?

. . . Moreover, everything you did seems to fall short of beingthe work of a God." "Men do not think that about me," Alex-

ander replied, "but they make me out a rival of Heracles and Dionysus.And what's more I alone seized that Aonos,

23 which neither of themsucceeded in taking." And then Philip concludes the Dialogue:" Do you see that you say that as if you really were the son of Ammon,comparing yourself with Heracles and Dionysus? Are you not

ashamed of yourself, Alexander, and will you not learn to drop that

bombast29 and yv&ar] aeavrov KCLL dvvrt ari ijd'f) veKpos o>i>;"

30 It is obvious

that Lucian is using the phrase 7^077 aeavrov here to mean 'Knowthat you could not perform the feats of a God since you are a mere

mortal, as the fact of your dying shows.' This satire reminds us

somewhat of the inscription that the Athenians placed on the inside

of the Gate which Pompey was to pass through as he left their city

after a short visit on his way to the East. His sacrificing to their

Gods and his address to the people had evidently made a favorable

impression upon them, and they wrote:

'E<p' offov &v avdpUTros oldas, tiri TOVOVTOV el Beds.31

27 Sec. 5.

28 A lofty rock in India.29 Cf. Stobaeus' quotation from Bias: r6 dt yv&di GO-VTOV xpfawoj' els vovOevLav

rdv &\a6vo}v,61 virtp T-TJV tavT&v dvvafjiiv <p\va.povcriv (Flor. 21.14.)

30 There is a suggestion of the maxim in this sense of 'know that you are

mortal' in a frag, of Philemon (213, Koch). Some one is carrying on a conver-

sation with a certain Kleon, who is apparently making excuses for his lack of

effort to acquire a trade. If the youth says he has property, this may fail. . .

If he says that his friends will take up a contribution for him, the speaker bids him:

d 5e /ZT), yv&crfi (Teavrov aXXo nqSlv Tr\rji>

Koch removes a certain harshness of expression by reading ov8& ovr' dXX' $

instead of aXXo nydlv ir\r)v ;but Heimsoeth's change of yvoxrei ataurbv to 7^01775

atorovs (See Herwerden Collectanea Critica p. 148) misses a point which wouldnot be lost upon a Greek audience. That his friends will not help Kleon is, of

course, the main implication, but the effect of their failure will make him not

only to become a mere shadow but to realize that that is all that he is. Cf.

Soph. Ajax 125-6.

6p<2, yap i7,uas ovdiv OVTO.S aXXo ir\r)v

6i5coX', o&onrep "coju', T/ Koixprjv crKiav.

11Plutarch, Vit. Pomp. c. 27. On the outside of the gate they placed the verse:

, irpocrtKwov^v, eiSojuef,

58

The maxim with this force seems to be implied in a couplet of

The Golden Sayings of the Pythagoreans :

32

/xr/6'

dXXd yv&Oi jite? cos Bav'eeiv TreTTpcorcu

That this was one of the teachings of the sect is made evident by a

fragment from the Pythagorean Hipparchus' treatise on Tranquility,

which reads in part: ravrav de e&vn /idXtcrra TTCLVTUV aKpijScos eTnaroL^evoi

/cat eireyvuKores euvrovs, on evn Bvarol KCLL aa.pK.ivoi. . . ,

33Jewish and

Christian writers also made much of the thought that man is humanin his limitations, as certain passages from Philo Judaeus and Cle-

ment of Alexandria attest. Clement says34 that yv&Bt, aavrov shows

many things, and he puts first in his enumeration KO! on Bvr\r6s el

Kal on avdpuiros eyevov. Philo concludes a discussion of the reasons

for the rite of Circumcision by saying that it is a symbol roO

TLVCL eavrov, and of discarding that terrible disease of the soul,

for some men boast that they are able to produce the fairest beingof all Creation man concealing the fact that God is in truth

the Creator. 35 And again in connection with the passage in Exodus

33; 18 ff., where Moses asks God to show him Himself,Philo interprets

God's answer to Moses as follows:"Neither the nature of man,

nor even the entire Heavens and the Universe can adequately appre-hend me. rVcoflt dfj aavrov, and be not carried away with impulsesand desires beyond thy power of realization, nor let the desire for

the unattainable seize thee and carry thee aloft."36 Such are the

words of Philo's God a Being who, unlike the more intimate Godsof Greece, sits in wondrous majesty in a far-off world beyond all

the conception and reach of men.

For the general idea cf. The Auctor Ad Herennium IV, 52 (65). In illustrating a" sermocinatio

" he pictures an incident in which after some military success,

a few men break into a certain house and demand the master of the household.

His wife throws herself at the feet of the leader and begs him to have mercy."

'Parce,' inquit, 'et per quae tibi dulcissima sunt in vita, miserere nostri. Noli

exstinguere exstinctos; fer mansuete fortunam; nos quoque fuimus bead: nosce

te esse hominem.' "

32Hierocles, The Golden Sayings of the Pythagoreans, p. 1, ed. Mullach.

vv. 14-15.

33 Stob. Flor. 108, 81.

34 Strom. V, IV, 23.

35De~Sp. Leg. I (De Circumcis.} 10.

38 De Sp. Leg. I (De Monarckia) 44.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 59

Over against this age-long consciousness of our human and mortal

nature, there came to be set the thought of the soul's essential divin-

ity and its immortality. The emphasis upon the divinity of the soul

resulted in an attitude of contempt for the body which tended awayfrom the Platonic ideal of the harmonious life toward the asceticism

of the Neo-Platonist and the Christian monk. As for the soul's

immortality, while it was taught in a sense by Plato and Aristotle37

and the Stoics, it remained for one of the Fathers of the Christian

church to apply the Delphic maxim with the force 'Know thou

canst not be born to perish forever.'38

37 See Nic. Ethics X, 7, H77b. *?d 817 Bdov 6 vovs Trpos TOV foOpuirov, *cai 6 icard

TOVTOV |3tos Otios Trpos TOV avdpfoinvov fiiov. oil XP 1) ^ Kara TOUS irapcuvovvTas hvOpfairiva.

<ppovciv avdpuirov ovra ovdl OvrjTa rbv QVTJTOV, &\\' k<p ovov ei>5exeTai &0avarl^eiv Kal

ieiv Trpos TO fjv Kara TO Kphriarov T&V kv avTtp.

38 See p. 99.

CHAPTER VIII

SATTON As KNOW YOUR SOUL

It is to Plato that we owe the first application of yv&Qi

in the sense of knowing one's own soul, for it is the purport of the

words of Socrates to Phaedrus when he explains that he has no time

for speculative theology, inasmuch as he has not yet succeeded in

knowing himself, whether he is a beast more passionate and intricate

than Typho, or a simpler and gentler creature. 1 This meaning was

taken up by the author of the Alcibiades 7, and forms the central

theme of the Dialogue. We recall2 that in the early part of the

discussion Socrates seeks to bring Alcibiades to a recognition of

how far his attainments fall short of his ambition, and that he uses

the Delphic maxim in emphasizing the need of his taking his ownmeasure. Alcibiades then asks how he may secure this requisite

knowledge of himself, and the conversation continues until he is

brought to a contradiction and humbly admits his ignorance. Soc-

rates tells him that there is hope for him since he is young, and bids

him go on answering questions if he wishes to improve, which leads

to a distinction between improving, or caring for, our belongings and

improving ourselves. To improve ourselves we must know our-

selves, and Socrates goes on to ask: irorepov ovv &} padlov rvyx&vti TO

'yv&va.i eavTov, /cat TLS rjv (pav\os 6 TOVTO avaOeis els rbv kv livdol ve&v, TJ

xaXe7roj> TL Kal OL>XI iravrosf Alcibiades replies that it often seems to

him to be in every one's power and again it seems very hard.4 "Easy

or not," says Socrates, "we must have it," and he proceeds to dis-

tinguish between the soul and the body, as he has before distinguished

between the person and his possessions. The soul is shown to be the

real self, and he affirms: il/vxyv &pa rj/j,as KeAeuci yvwpiffai 6 kiriraTTuv

yv&vai eavTov.5 Then follows a little further consideration of the

tripartite division, which we met in the Philebus6 the self, and the

things of the self, and the things of the things of the self7

leading

1 See p. 41.

2 See p. 18.

3 129A.

4 See p. 78.

6 130E.

6 See pp. 16f.

7Phrasing in 133D-E.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 61

again to the placing of the emphasis upon the real self, or the soul. 8

"How then can we know it (the art of caring for the soul) most

clearly?" Socrates asks. "For if we know this, it seems we shall

also know ourselves. And in the name of the Gods, if we are right

in what we say, do we not get the meaning of the Delphic inscription

of which we were just now reminded?" Alcibiades is puzzled, but

Socrates tells him what he surmises the inscription to mean that

as the eye can see itself by looking into another eye, so the soul

to know itself "must look at soul, and especially at the part of it

in which the virtue of soul exists, namely wisdom" 9. . . "This

part of the soul is like to God, and any one looking to this and know-

ing all that is divine, God and (ppovri&is, would in this way especially

know himself. . . . ''Looking to God we would use Him as the

fairest mirror, and looking also into the virtue of the human soul

in this way would we see and know ourselves best." 10 This gives

enough of the Dialogue for our purposes, perhaps, but the argumentis carried further to show that only as a man knows his real self,

will he know aright the things of the self, and the things of the things

of the self. And if he does not know all this regarding himself, he

r.annot know it for others or be a competent leader of men.

It is the soul, or the real self, then, which the maxim here bids

us know. The antithesis between soul and body thus set up resulted

in a tendency to use yv&Qt. cravrov in emphasizing a knowledge of the

soul irrespective of the body, though we sometimes find it applied to a

knowledge of the relation between the two, and in a few instances

it is treated as a very definite injunction to know one's physical

nature and its powers as an important preliminary to the fullest

self-knowledge. This last is especially true of the use of the apoph-

thegm by Philo Judaeus. He would have man remember the insigni-

ficant elements of which he is made,11 but he would also have him

know his physical frame and sensibilities before going on to the more

important knowledge of the mind and soul and the apprehension of

8 132C.9 133B.10 133 C: cts TOV Qfhv apa jSAeTnwres kKelvq /caXX^arcj) &>6irTp($ XPVM6^' &v ^ai T&V

bvBpuTrlvuv els rrjv i/'uxrjs aper^, KCU OUTWS av /idXterra op&nev /cat yiyvwaKonev r)/j,as aurouj.

11Sp. Leg. I, 263A; De Somn. I, 211-2. Cf. Tertullian, De Anima XVII

"ipsius del providentiam . . qui cunctis operibus suis intellegendis, incolendis,

dispensandis, fruendisque fallaces et mendaces dominos praefecerit sensus . .

Sed enim Plato, ne quod testimonium sensibus signet, propterea et in Phaedro

x Socratis persona negat se cognoscere posse semetipsum. ..."

62

true Being. He introduces yv&Qi aavrbv with this purport in his

symbolic interpretation of Charran and the life of Jacob in particular.

Charran the land into which Terah came when he left Chaldea,12

and into which Jacob went to live with his Uncle Laban, is the

land of the external senses. The word means "holes,

" 13 he says,

and he bids the man who would examine himself go into the holes

and caverns of the body, and investigate his eyes, ears, nostrils, and

other organs of sense. 14 "He who is still active in mortal life has

need of these organs,"15 and so Rebekkah says to Jacob:

16yv&6i aavrov

Kal TCL ffaVTOV ^kpT] Tl T eKCLffTOV Kal TTpOS T\ JtyOVt KOil 7TCOS Wtpjelv TT(pVK6

Kai rls 6 ra Oav/JLara KLV&V Kal vevpocnracrT&v aoparos dopdrcos ei're 6 kv &ol

vovs 6 ire TCOP wniravruv. But Rebekkah would not have Jacob stay longin the country of the external senses. ^He was not to remain there

all his life but "certain days," while a long lifetime is stored up for

him in the city of the Mind. 17 *The command to Abraham likewise

was to depart from his country and his kindred, the outward senses,

which means to be alienated from them in one's thought to treat

them as subjects, to learn to rule and not be ruled by them. 18 Havra

rbv ai&va ylvoxrKe aeavrov, Philo says, . . . OUTOJS "yap &v re viraKoveiv

Kal ols eTrtrdrretv irpoffTJKev 0,10-017077.19 This control of the outward

senses is followed by the mind's beginning to know itself20 and

associating with the reflections of the intellect, and when the mind

has come to understand itself accurately, it will probably somehowknow God.21

12 Mixed in with this exposition of the meaning of self-knowledge are exhor-

tations to abandon the study of the physical sciences and to know oneself, even

as Terah in going from Chaldea abandoned the investigation of the universe

for which the Chaldeans were famous to study himself at Charran. The dis-

position which the Hebrews called Terah, he says, found concrete embodimentin Socrates, who grew old in the most careful consideration of yv&di aavrov. DeSomn. I, 58. cf. Mig. Abraham 185.

13 De Fuga et Inventtone 45.14 De Somn. I, 55.

16 De Fug. et In. 45.16 Sec. 46.

17 De Somn. I, 46.

18 Cf. Tertullian, De Anima XVII: "Plato, ne quod testimonium sensibus

signet, propterea et in Phaedro ex Socratis persona negat se cognoscere posse

semetipsum. ..."19 De Mig. Abraham 7-8.

20 Ibid. 13.

21 Ibid. 195. fjLaJ9a)v d/cpi/Scos kavrbv eurercu raxa. TOV Kal 0eo." . . . .

63

Porphyry in an extract from his work on Tv&di Sauro? refers to

Plato's Philebus and says, among other things, that to know oneself

altogether probably includes i^ucis /cat ra i^uerepa /cat TO, r&v ri^erkp^v.

"Plato," he says, "was zealous to know himself in every way, that the

immortal man within might be known and the outer portrait mightnot be unknown, and that the difference between them might be

distinguishable. For the perfect vovs of which each of us is a likeness

distinguishes the inner self, where the real man dwells, and the

outer image is distinguishable by the things of the body and one's

possessions. The powers of these also we ought to know and con-

sider how far they extend. . . .

" 22 The Emperor Julian likewise

says23 that yv&Bi (ravrov means a knowledge of the body, for

"Socrates

and many others," he says,"thought TO eavrov yv&vai to be this

TO {jLaOelv d/cpt/3cos rl (j,ev airodorfov \//vxti, TL d o-co^art." and earlier in

the same chapter he says:24 "He who knows himself will know about

the soul and he will know about the body also. . . . And comingback to the first beginning of the body, he will consider whether it

is simple or composite; and then as he goes forward he will reflect

about its harmony, and how it is affected, and about its powers and,

in a word, about everything which it needs for its continuance."

The above passages from Porphyry and Julian are patentlymere enlargements of the ra eauroO theme of Plato's tripartite division,

and Philo very likely had it in mind also. There is a further instance

of self-knowledge as applied to the body in Nemesius' work on The

Nature of Man,25 where he says that the Tree of Knowledge in the

Garden of Eden gave a knowledge of one's nature, and makes it

clear that the self-knowledge which it gave was a consciousness of

one's bodily needs. 26 He refers to the Hebrews the statement that

man in the beginning was neither mortal nor immortal; for if he

had been mortal, God would not have pronounced death as the pen-

alty of his disobedience, while if he had been immortal, he would

not have needed food; and he gives as his own view that man in that

state was equipped as a mortal, but was able to attain immortality

22 Stob. Flor. 21:28.23VI, 190B.

24 183B-C.28

1, 16.

28 Cf. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II, 11. r6 nlv

rrjs yvuffews, airoireipav TWO., Kal doKL/j.^v, Kal yv^va<nov rijs TOV avdp&Trov viraKoijs

irapaKofjs. AiA Kal ^DAo^ TOV yivdxrKeiv KO\OV Kal irovrjpbv /ce/cXTjrat, r) 6nTOLS nc.Ta\a.nfta.vov<n rfjs otKe(as v?i><ros.

64 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

through progress. At length, after explaining that plants in those

days before they had been touched had a very strong power, and that

there was a fruit which gave knowledge of one's own nature, he goes

on to say: "God did not want man to know his own nature before

he attained perfection, that he might not know that he was in want

of many things, and come to care for his bodily needs, abandoningall forethought for the soul. For this reason God sought to prevent

his taking of the Fruit of Knowledge. But giving no heed and

yvovs tavTov man fell away from perfection, and became the prey

of his physical need; at any rate he straightway sought a covering,

for Moses says he knew that he was naked."

]>co0i ffavrov was sometimes used, moreover, as an injunction to

know the relation between body and soul, and of this use we have a

very good instance in Plutarch's refutation of Colotes, an Epicurean

who had published a book entitled "According to the Opinions of

the Other Philosophers it is not Possible even to Live."27 He had

evidently scoffed at Socrates for seeking to know what man is, and

Plutarch says that Socrates was not a fool for searching into him-

self, but those who undertake to investigate other knowledge first are

foolish, since the knowledge of self is so necessary and so hard to

find.28 But let us ask Colotes, he says, how it is that a man cannot

continue living when he happens to reason with himself in this

way: "Come, what is this that I happen to be? Am I made up of

soul and body mixed, or does the soul use the body as a horseman

uses a horse, without the two being a mixture of horse and man?

Or are we each most authoritative in that part of the soul with

which we think and reason and act, and are all the other parts of

the soul and body instruments of this power? Or is there no essence

of the soul at all, but is the body itself a mixture, with the power of

knowing and living? . . . These are those dreadful and perplexing

questions in the Phaedrus where Socrates thinks he ought to consider

whether he is a monster more intricate and passionate than Typho,or whether he shares in a certain divine and less monstrous destiny.

"29

Cicero echoes the main point of the Alcibiades I in his Tusculan

Disputations30 in saying that "Nosce te" means "Nosce animum

27 Ad. Colotem c.l. irepi TOV &TI Kara ret T&V aXXco?' <f>i\oo-6<f>uv Soynara oi>6l

ffTlV.

28 c. 20, 1118F.29

c. 21.

301, 52.

65

tuum," but he indicates the relation of the soul to the body whenhe adds: "Nam corpus quidem quasi vas est aut aliquod animi

receptaculum."

Porphyry in his Letter to Marcella expresses this

same conception under a different figure.31 "The divine cries aloud

in the pure region of thy mind," he writes,"

'unless thou dost keep

thy body joined to thee only as the outer membrane is joined to the

child in the womb, and as the sheath is joined to the sprouting grain,

thou wilt not know thyself.' Nor does any one know himself whodoes not so think." So in an extract on the different classes of

virtues, Porphyry says that the very foundation and under-pinning,as it were, of Kd0ap<ns is for the soul to know itself existent in another

substance and bound together with a different essence.32

One of the ways by which Socrates in the Alcibiades I led up to

the thought that yv&Qi aavrbv means 'Know your soul' was by

showing first that man and the soul are one 17 \f/vxrj tvriv ai/0pa>7ros33

and this was probably the starting-point of the idea that yv&di, cravrov

means to know man. So the title which came to be attached to

the dialogue read: AXjajStd^s Melfav, ij Ilept A^PCOTTOU 3>uo-ecos;34 and

Plutarch says regarding Socrates' attempt to know what man is35

that yv&Oi aavrov gave to Socrates the beginning of his perplexity

and investigation, according to Aristotle, and that if man is that

which is made up of both soul and body, as the Epicureans claim,

he who seeks the nature of soul seeks the nature of man. Thenext step in the process of extending yv&Qt, <ravT6i> along this line is

shown clearly in a statement of Porphyry's to the effect that some

people assert that the inscription urges us to know man, and since

man is a small universe,36 the command means nothing other than to

31 Letter to Marcella, 32: d WTO o-co/xa ourw crot crwr/pTT/crflat <pvXaets cos rots

x6p<- v Ko TV vi-Tty /SXacTTai'oi'Ti TI)J> Ka\a.fj,r]v, ov yv&ariQ <reavTrif ovSt yapaXXos 6ffTis /n) OVTU 6oafet %yv(t) kavrov.

32 Stob. Flor. I, 88. See page 74.

33 130C.34 Proclus In Ale. I, vol. II, p. 3 ed. Creuzer.35 Ad. Colotem 20: TO yv&Qi cravTov 6 dy Kai Sco/cpdrei airopLas /cat ^njcrccos TaOr^s

&PXnv weduKtv, cbs ApicTToreX^s kv rots TIXarcoi'tKots etprjfce . . . et 7ap TO &fj,<f>olv,

cos d^icCcm/ avroi, crcojucrros Toto05e /cat i/'ux^s? avOpwrros cffnv, 6 %TIT&V \f/vxys <pv<riv,

&V0'pWTTOU r)Tfl <f>V(TLV K T7JS /CUptCOTepttS dpX^S-36 Cf. Manilius Astronomica IV, 893-5:

"Quid mirum, noscere mundumSi possunt homines, quibus est et mundus in ipsis,

Exemplumque dei quisque est in imagine parva?"

66

be a philosopher.37 Proclus says in his Commentary on Alcibiades I

CLVTTJ rolvvv eorw /cat <piXocro^Has apxn Kal rfjs nXdrcoi/os 5idacrKa\ias, $

tavr&v 7J>co(7ts38 and he says further that lamblichus gave the Alci-

biades I the first place in the ten dialogues in which he thought the

entire philosophy of Plato was contained.39 This extension of

yv&di ffavTov, so explicitly stated by the Neo-Platonists, goes back

to the Stoics, who made it not only the beginning of philosophy,but to use Julian's phrase, the very sum and substance thereof

TO TV&OL aavTov Ke<pa\aiov rLdevrai <>iXo(ro^>ias.40 To StOtC and and Neo-

Platonist alike the end of self-knowledge, like the end of philosophywas happiness,

41though that happiness was attained in somewhat

different ways by the two schools.

It is in the writings of Cicero that we find the fullest expressionof the tendency of the Stoics to centre all their philosophy around

yv&Bi (ravTov, though it is made evident here and there among other

writers. Philostratus, for instance, tells the story42 of how Apollonius

of Tyana went to visit some Indian Sages who told him to ask themwhatever he wished since they knew all things. Accordingly Apol-lonius asked them if they knew themselves, thinking that like

the Greeks, they would consider knowing oneself hard; but larchus,

their leader, contrary to his expectation, said, "We know all

things, eireidrj Trpcorous eaurous 717^0-^0^16^. For no one of us ap-

proaches this philosophy without first knowing himself."43Apol-

lonius agreed with this reasoning, because he had been convinced

of its truth in his own case also, and he asked them further what

37 Stob. Flor. 21:27.

38 Vol. I, p. 5 Creuzer.

39 P. 11.

40 Or. VI, 185D.

41 Stob. Flor. 21:27: 17 de (nrovdr) rrjs Trpos TO yv&vai eavrov 7rapa/ccXcu<recos els

rev&v TTJS a\r)divfjs fv8ai/j,ovias airoTflveTai,.

"Apoll. Ty. Ill, 18.

43Apropos of this idea a late epigram in the Palatine Anthology is of interest

(XI, 349):

dirt irbQcv av /xerpets KOV/JLOV KO.L ireipara 701775

l 6X1777$ yairjs (rcojua tpepcov 6\lyov.

'La.vrov &pLd/Jir](Tov wporepov /cat yv&di treavrdj'

Kai TOT* dpi0,u;(ms yalav a.Treipeai'rjv.

el d' 6\iyov Trrj\6v TOV trw/zaros

TTWS dvvaaai yv&vcu TCOV a/jLerpoiv TO.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 67

they considered themselves to be. "Gods," larchus replied, and

when Apollonius asked him why, he said: "Because we are goodmen."

Epictetus uses language suggestive of the maxim in exhortingus to recognize our divine nature and to live in the dignity of the

consciousness that we are gods;44 and in another passage

45 he intro-

duces yv&di (TavTov in emphasizing the thought that the soul is the

part of the self which most needs attention. He says in his chapteron Finery in Dress that if he tries to remind those who come to his

school that it is character which makes beautiful, whatever the out-

ward appearance, and tells them of their faults, they may be angry46

and leave the school, or at any rate they may not heed his advice.

But what about Apollo? "Why was the yv&di, aavrbv inscribed in

public view when no one heeds it?"47 Neither did men listen to

Socrates in his tireless efforts to win them to virtue. And so Epictetuswill say to youth: "Know first what thou art and thus array thy-

self. Thou art a human being that is, thou art a mortal creature,

knowing how to use thine imagination with reason. . . . ThyReason is peculiarly thine. This do thou adorn and beautify."

48

Seneca says: "Tune demum intelleges quid faciendum tibi, quidvitandum sit cum didiceris quid naturae tuae debeas";

49 and Julian

expresses this thought of Seneca's when in saying that yv&Bi, O-CLVTOV

was the end and aim of the Stoic philosophy, he explains that theymade their aim professedly to live in accord with Nature, which it

is not possible for a man to attain who does not know of what sort

his own nature is.50

When we turn back to Cicero, we find this tendency of the Stoics

to make yv&6i aavrbv embrace all their philosophy in various partsof his works. In his De Finibus he says:

51 "Intrandum . . . est

in rerum naturam et penitus, quid ea postulet, providendum; aliter

44II, 8, 10-13.

45III, I.

46 Cf. II, 14, 18-20, where he says to Naso av ovv aoi delfc . . .

otire rl deds kanv oldas ovre TI avdpcairos cure TI aya66v ovre TL KO.KOV, Kal TO /j.ev T&V

a\Xcoj> urcos avenTov, on d' avTos OO.VTOV ayvoels, TTCOS dvva&ai di'acrxea'flat, /AOV Kal

47 Sec. 18. See p. 10, n. 8248 Sec. 24-25.

49Ep. XX, 4, 3.

60VI, 185D, 186A.

61V, 44.

68 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. . . lubet igitur nos

Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos. Cognitio autem haec est una

nostri, ut vim corporis animique norimus sequamurque earn vitam

quae rebus iis perfruatur."52 He says also in the same work that

without a knowledge of natural philosophy no one can see the force

of those old precepts of the Wise Men, which bid us "tempori parereet sequi deum et se noscere et nihil nimis.

"53 In his Tusculan Dis-

putations^ he repeats again the idea that the philosopher is con-

cerned with investigating Nature,55 and says: "Haec tractanti

52 Cf. Choricius of Gaza, Epitaphius for Procopius pp. 15-16, Boissonade.

He tells the story of Apollo's reply to Croesus' question as to how he could passhis life happily, and then adds: d TO'LVVV b ptv yvovs eavTov evdaLjj.ui>, Kara TT\V 'A7r6X-

Xcofos \l/rj<pov t yiv&aKei 5e rts eavTov, on av 6 0eos 7rpdeie crrepycov, evdaifjioves apa yevrjo'fo'de

Aii) dvffXfpaivovTes TO irapbv.53

III, 73.

64V, 70.

55 Cf. Ambrose Hex. VI, II, 3: "Nunc age, naturas bestiarum dicamus, et

homimis generationem. Audio enim iamdudum aliquos insusurrare dicentes

'Quam diu aliena discimus et nostra nescimus? Quamdiu de reliquis animantibus

docemur scientiam, et nosmetipsos ignoramus? Illud dicat quod mini prosit,

unde me ipsam noverim'. . . . Sed ordo servandus est quem Scriptura con-

texuit; simul quia non possumus plenius nos cognoscere, nisi prius quae sit omniumnatura animantium cognoverimus."

One of Epictetus' fragments, however, (Stob. Flor. 80:14 ed. Gaisford)

presents something of a puzzle in this connection. In apparent contradiction

of the usual Stoic emphasis upon the importance of a knowledge of the Universe,

he protests against absorption in these speculative problems, and asks if it is not

enough to learn the essence of good and evil and the measure of the desires and

aversions, and so forth, and let the things above us go. And he asks: A*1) rl ovv

Kal TO kv AeX^ois irapayyeXfjia. TrapeXxov kcrri TO yv&dt, aavTov . . . Tls ovv 57 Swa/xis

O.VTOVj

el xoptVTV r*-s Trapr]yye\\e TO yv&vai tavTov OVK av kv TIJ irpoaTa^et, irpoaiix* T$iirL(TTpa<f>rjvai. The fragment ends at this point in certain MSS., but in others

the idea that a xope^s must work in harmony with the rest of the chorus is

followed up and the thought that man is a social being is emphasized. Where-

upon the question is raised as to whether one ought not to know what Nature

is and how she manages the Universe.

The contradictions involved in this fragment as it stands are not easily

explicable. It is probable, however, that the last sentence is not by Epictetus,

but rather crept into certain of the MSS. from the pen of some one who took

exception to his denouncement of the study of physical phenomena. Therein

lies a difficulty for us as well. It may be that if we had the entire discourse

instead of an extract, we should find either that Epictetus is quoting from some

dissenter to Stoic tenets, or that he himself is not so much protesting against

all knowledge of physical philosophy as insisting, like Socrates of old, upon the

paramount value of ethical studies. Tv&di aavTbv here obviously means ' Give

69

animo et noctes et dies cogitanti existit ilia a deo DeJphis praecepta

cognitio, ut ipsa se mens agnoscat coniunctamque cum divina mente

se sentiat, e quo insatiabili gaudio compleatur." But it is in his

De Legibus that Cicero gives his fullest exposition of Stoic tenets

in their relation to yv&Qi aavrov. "For Philosophy alone teaches

us," he says, "not only other things, but also that which is most

difficult ut nosmet ipsos nosceremus;and so great is the force

and thought of this precept that it is attributed not to some manbut to the Delphic God. For he who knows himself will perceive

first of all that he possesses something divine, and he will think of

his spirit within him as something consecrated like a sacred image,

and he will always do and think something worthy of so great a

gift from the gods. And when he has perceived himself and tested

himself fully, he will know with what natural equipment he came into

life, and what means he has for obtaining and acquiring Philosophy,

inasmuch as he will conceive first of the knowledge of all things

shadowed as it were in his mind and soul; and with this made clear,

he will see that under the leadership of Philosophy he will be a good

man, and for that very reason, happy. . . . And when he has

observed the sky, and the earth, and the seas, and the nature of all

things, and whence these were generated, whither they return,

when and in what way they meet their end, what in them is mortal

and perishable, what divine and eternal; and when he shall see

himself regulating and almost ruling them, and shall comprehendthat he is not surrounded by the walls of some one place, but shall

recognize himself as a citizen of the whole universe as if it were one

city in this splendid conception of things and in this grasp of a

knowledge of Nature, ye Immortal Gods, how he will know himself!

In view of the precept which the Pythian gave, how he will condemn,how he will despise, how he will count as naught those things which

are commonly called most important! And all these (interests of

philosophy) he will intrench by a hedge as it were, through his

method of discussion, his ability to judge of true and false, and a

attention to yourself, your desires and aversions, inclinations, &c, and its exten-

sion to include 'Know your place in society' is interesting, if only a comment

by some unknown critic.

Various emendations have been suggested for the text of the last sentence

of the above. We have followed Gaisford, who keeps to the MSS. save for the.

change of r6 kiri<TTpa<f>rjvai to T& cin<rTpa<f>ijvat,.

70

certain skill in knowing what follows each thing and what is opposite

to each. And when he perceives that he has been born for civil

society, he will not only think that he ought to use that careful rea-

soning for himself, but also that he ought to diffuse more widely the

power of speech by which he rules peoples, establishes laws, chastises

the wicked, gives recognition to the Good, praises illustrious men, gives

forth precepts of safety and praise suited for the persuading of his

fellow-citizens, exhorts to glory, recalls from disgrace, consoles the

afflicted, and records the deeds and counsels of the brave and wise,

along with the ignominy of the wicked, in eternal monuments. These

are the powers, many and great as they are, which those who wish

to know themselves see to be in man; and the parent and nurse

of these is Philosophy." 56

We have seen, then, how from the idea that yv&Bi. (ravrov bids

us know our soul, the command came to be applied not only to the

relation of the soul to the body in the case of the individual, but to

the knowledge of man in general and the pursuit of philosophy,

including the main tenets of the Stoics. The Neo-Platonists con-

strued the God's command to mean a knowledge of the psychological

analysis of the soul into its various faculties and functions, while

they brought its phraseology into connection with the idea of self-

consciousness, and applied it to certain of the soul's activities.

Plotinus says in his first chapter on the Difficulties about the Soul that

in investigating these difficulties we would obey the command of

the God which bids us know ourselves;57 and again in speaking of the

One or the Good and of how it transcends all predications of know-

ledge, he says:58

eirel /cat TO yv&di aavrbv Xeyerat TOVTOLS ot 5td TO TrXf/flos

eavT&v epyov xoi>0"t Staptfljuei*' eaurous /cat jua0eti>, ocra /cat Trota 6vTes ov

TTCLVTCL 'icraaLv ?) ovdev, oi'5' on apxet ou5e /card rt aurot. Porphyry says in

his work on IVco0t I>avrbv that knowing oneself is likely to have reference

to the necessity of knowing the soul and the *>oOs.59 And when

66 De Legibus I, 58-62. Ed. Orellius.

57 En. IV, III, 1 : Trfi86fj,f8a 5c av Kai T<$ TOV 0eou Trapa/ceXeuaAtaTi avrovs JLVCOVKCIV

Trapa/ceAeuojuei'cj) irepl TOVTOV TTJV eercum> iroiovntvoi. lamblichus says in his Letter

to Sopater on Dialectic (Stob. Flor. 81, 18) : nai rr\v avn^niyp.kvrjv Si&vKef'iv TOV \6yov

irpos TO. oXa TTpayfj.ara d7G.7rcojuev avrrjv 5e rrjv eavrov yv&aw TOV \6yov, KaB' TJV a.<pe/j,ei>os

T&V aXAajp TJ)V irept aurou eTrLOTij/jnyv /carecrr^craro a^voro.rf\v ovaav Kai Tifj.KdTa.T'rjv, cbs

i T& tv IIu^oi 7pd/i/za, d7ro5o/ctjud(ro^' cos air6(3\rjTOv.

88 En. VI, VIII, 41 (cf. En. V, III, 10 & 13).69 Stob. Flor. 21:28. Seep. 76.

71

Julian says in speaking of the apophthegm that he who knows him-

self will know about his soul, and he will know about his body,he adds: "And this alone is not enough to understand that

man is soul using a body, but he will go on to the essence of the

soul itself, and then he will trace out its faculties."60 This psycho-

logical analysis of the soul found its beginning and inspiration in

Plato, and was carried on in greater detail by Aristotle in his Meta-

physics and De Anima,61 but it received a new impetus through the

work of Plotinus and thereby became the very basis of Neo-Platonism.I

^Plotinus regarded the soul as a mean62 between the world of sense

and the higher intelligence, Nous, and in the particular chapter63

in which he discusses self-knowledge he speaks of the soul as contain-

ing broadly the faculty of sense perception, the faculty by which

judgments are formed in relation to sense impressions, designatedas dianoetic, and pure reason or intelligence, which he calls the

vovs in the soul, because of its likeness to the higher Nous.64 The

faculty of sense perception aside, Plotinus attributes self-knowledgeto these faculties of the soul proper and to the NoOs, though he con-

ceives of an ultimate Reality beyond the NoOs the Good or the

One of which neither self-knowledge nor anything else can be

predicated.65 The self-knowledge of the dianoetic part of the soul

consists in knowing that it is dianoetic that it receives the know-

ledge of external things and judges with the standards in itself

which it has trom Nous, knowing that it is second after Nous and an

image of Nous, with all things written in itself.66 The self-knowledge

of the vovs in the soul and of the Higher Nous is an intellectual self-

knowledge the self-consciousness of the individual and of the

60 VI, 183 B. Cf. Proclus, In Ale. 7, vol. I, p. 278 Creuzer.

61III, 9, 432 a.29 ff.

62 En. V, III, 3. Cf. Julian VI, 184A: ra re yap dela, Sta rfjs hovarjs foiir

deias (Jiepldos TO. Tcdwira 8ia TTJS flr^roetSoOs /j,oipas Trpds TOVTOIS c<prj TO. jueray TOV fwoKcivat rbv avdpanrov. rtp fj.kv KaB' ena&Tov QVTJTOV, TO> iravri <5e a.6avo.Tov. . . .

83 En. V, III.

64 En. V, III, 2.

65 En. VI, VII, 41. See also En. VI, IX, 6: ov8t vb^jis . . . irpb y&p KU^-

(7ccos Kal irpb vor)(Tus' rl yap nai vorjo-et, ', [ij] kavrbv. irpo w^crecos, TOIVVV ayvo&v ecrrai,

Kai vori(TU>s Severerat, tva yvQ eavrov 6

"En. V, III, 4.

72

General Mind the turning of the mind in upon itself67 until thinker

and thought are one.68

For the history of the connection of this idea of self-consciousness

with the maxim we need to go back to Plato's Charmides. WhenCritias had given out yv&Qi, aavrbv as a definition of (Tuppoavvr) and

had made a fanciful attempt to show the connection between the

two,69 Socrates took up the theme of self-knowledge not from a

personal but from an epistemological point of view. He arguedthat the knowledge of self must be unlike other sciences, for its object

is within itself, while the object of any other science is without.

Critias replied that self-knowledge differs from other sciences in

that it includes a knowledge of itself and other knowledge as well;

and this, Socrates adds, would involve a knowledge of the absence

of knowledge also. 70 But this science which is not a science of anyone subject, but a science of itself and of other sciences and the

absence of sciences, is shown not to exist in the realm of sense, or

of wish, or desire, and so forth, and Socrates says that they have

need of some great man to determine whether it exists at all.71

Granted that it does exist, the argument runs, he who has it will

know himself;72 but the argument closes without proving the exis-

tence or practical advantage of such a science.

This puzzle as to whether if a thing knows itself it does not

combine in itself the incompatible qualities of subject and object,

of knower and known, of thinker and thought, is raised in the Par-

67 The close connection between tTrio-Tpe<petv and yvudi aavrov appears in manypassages. For instance, Proclus In Ale. I, p. 277, Creuzer: r/5i7 ovv kavTbv apxerai

yw<!o<TKu> 6 'AA/a/3id6?7s irpdrepov tavrtv irpo'3a\\ovTa TOI>S \6yovs, vvv av /cat TOVTO yivw-

(TKovTa, 8ri els tavrov eTrurrpe^ei Kai rrjv eauroO kvkpyeiav KOI rijv eavrov yv&viv yiyv&aKaiv

tv ylverai Trpds TO yvuaTbv /cat avTos 6 TPOTTOS rfjs CTTKTTPO^TJS h eaurw irept-ayei rfjv

il/vxyv ds T-fjv rrjs o><7tas 0eupiav. Olympiodorus In Ale. I, vol. II, p. 10 Creuzer:

el Tap roi}T($ irepl rov yv&vai eavrov SiaXa/z/Sapei, 5ta Se rou eirwrrpe^eu' irpos eaurous yivw-

<rKOfj.ev eaurous. Proclus, Inst. Theol. LXXXIII : irav TO eavrov yvoxmKov, Trpos eavro

ira.VT'fl Tn(rTp6TrTi,K6v kanv. on nkv yap TJJ evepytl<f. Trpos eauro C7ri(rrp<p(., yiv&anov

kovrb, brjKov tv yap ean TO ytv&ffKov, nai TO yivuanbiitvov. And CLXXXVI: ^uxi)

... el yap yivd)<TKi eavT-^v, irav 8e TO eavTd ywuxruov Trpos cauTou eTrto-Tpe^crat. . . .

68 Cf. Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists, p. 54: "The highest mode of subjective

life, next to the complete unification in which even thought disappears, is intel-

lectual self-knowledge. Here the knower is identical with the known. "

89 164D-165B. See pp. 33-34.70 166E.71 169A.72 169E.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 73

menides in connection with the suggestion that the Ideas may be

thoughts,73 and it is discussed more at length in Aristotle's De

Anima. 74 When we come to Plotinus, we find an insistence uponthe identity of vovs with vorjra in his chapter on Gnostic Hypostases."Does the vovs," he asks, "behold one part of itself with another

part?" and he proceeds to argue that this division of vovs is absurd,

by raising questions as to how and by whom the division is to be

made; then he continues: elra TT&S eavrbv yv&crerai 6 dewp&v ev TO;

Oeupovpevu) rdas eavrov Kara TO Seupelv ;ov yap rjv ev rw 0ecopou/zei>co rb

Beupelv ; r} yvovs eavrbv ourco deupovfjievov, dXX' ov Beupovvra, vorjaei &(rre

ov Travra ovde o\ov yv&crerat, eavrov . . .r) irpoa'drjo'ei Trap' avrov Kal

rbv redeuprjKora, Iva reheiov avrov vevorjKcos.75 If the perceiver pos-

sesses the things perceived, he goes on to say, he does not see them

through dividing himself, but he has beheld and possessed them

prior to the division of himself; and if this be the case, 8el ryvdeuplav

ravrov elvai r<3 flecoprjro), Kal rbv vovv ravrov elvat, TO; vorjrq . . ev apaotirco vovs Kal rb voyrbv Kal rb ov. . . . Farther on he argues that vorj<ns

and vorjrov are the same, since vorjrov, like vorjffis, is an evepyela,

and so all will be one vovs, vorj(ns and TO voyrov. This oneness of

vovs with voyrov, and of both with vorjcris, is reiterated elsewhere

in Plotinus76 and in other Neo-Platonist writings, particularly in

Proclus' Institituo Theologia.11 In this sense of the identity of

thinker with thought, or knower with known, the vovs in the soul

may be said to know itself, and self-knowledge becomes synonymouswith self-consciousness. "It represents with Plotinus," as Brett

has said in his History of Psychology, "an intermediary stage between

consciousness of objects and the final unity which has no distinction

of subject and object."78 Or as Plotinus himself puts it, "the

self-knowledge of the vovs of the soul consists in knowing itself no

73 132C.74 For Aristotle's discussion of the problem see article by Shorey on the De

Anima in A. J. P. XXII, pp. 154 ff.

75 En. V, III, 5.

76 See En. Ill, IX, 1 el-rep IJLOVOV oimos oi> TO fjLev vorjTov, TO de voovv. & En. VI,

VII, 41 el de TO&TOV vovs, vorj<ns, VOIJTOV, irovrt] ev yevo/jieva aupaviel O.VTO, ev avTols.

77 CLXVII-CLXIX. Note esp. the following: iravTws apa TO irpb avrov

yivaxTKwv yv&aeTai Kal eavTov, el ovv rts e0Ti vovs vorjTos, eKetvos eavTov etScos, Kat TOV

VOTJTOV ol8e, vorjTbs &v, 6 kanv OVTOS (CLXVII); and el yap eavrbv voel, Kal ravTo

vovs Kal vot\rbv. Kal vorjais r$ v$ Tavro Kal r<y vor}T$ (CLXIX). Cf. Proclus In Tim. 75

A-B, & 267D.78 P. 312.

74

longer as man, but as having become altogether different in hastening

to unite itself with the higher alone, and drawing on the better part

of the soul, which alone is able to be winged toward intelligence,

that it may deposit there in the better part of the soul what it has

seen." 79 The perfect self-consciousness of the Higher NoDs, that

is, of the General Mind of which the individual mind is but a part,

naturally follows, and of this too Plotinus uses phraseology sug-

gestive of the maxim when he speaks of it as 6 vovs ... 6 reXetos

Kai was, 6 yiyv&aKuv Trpcorcos eavrov. . . .

80

* The Neo-Platonist Commentators on the Alcibiades I, Proclus

and Olympiodorus, brought yv&Qi aavrbv into relation with the

activities by which the soul abstracts itself from the realm of sense,

and gives itself to pure speculative thought and contemplationactivities designated as Kadaprutov and BewprjTLKov respectively.

81

With regard to the Cathartic activity, Proclus asks: 82 From what

point should we properly begin the purification and perfection of

ourselves other than with the command which the God at Delphi

gave us? For as an inscription presents itself to those who are

about to enter the precinct at Eleusis, forbidding the uninitiated to

go within, so surely the yv&di aavrov on the temple front at Delphi

showed, I fancy, the way of approach to the divine, and the most

effectual road to purification. It says virtually in plain terms to

those who can understand, that he who knows himself beginning

at the hearth83is able to be united with

(Jod,the revealer and guide

of universal truth and of the purified life." The actual way in which

yv&Bi (ravTov aids in purification is indicated by Porphyry when he

says that the very foundation of /cd0ap<ns is TO yv&vcu eavTov ^vxyv ovra

kv dXXorpto) r(3 Trpay^an /cat erepoucnco (rvvdedefjievov.** Knowing oneself

&s is the phrase the Neo-Platonists used to characterize

79 En. V, III, 4.

80 En. V, III, 8.

81 Vol. II, pp. 4-5, Creuzer. They also brought yv&6i aavrov into relation

with the ethical faculty, designated as TTO\LTLKOV. Olympiodorus tells us that

Damascius said that Socrates wanted Alcibiades to know himself

reasoning from the definition of man in the dialogue as a ^vx

Ktxwft&ifF Tfy.ff&tittrt (Ale. /, 130A). "The political soul alone," he reasoned,

bpyavq KfXP'nrai TCO oxbjuaTi de6/j.evos eari on dvfjiov, cos UTrep irarpidos, aXAa Kai C7ri9u/uay

roO tviroLrja-ai TOVS TroXtras (vol. II, p. 4, Creuzer. See note 9 of same.).82 Vol. I, p. 5.

83nvr]9ds a<p' eorias was a phrase used in a solemn initiation at Eleusis.

84 Stob. Flor. 1:88. See p. 65

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 75

their application of the figure of the eye in the Alcibiades I. Olym-

piodorus explains that in saying that the eye to see itself must look

at another eye, and at the most important part thereof, Socrates

meant that eireiori TO ev oral OLVTO dvrjrov aTrerixpXcoo-as rats (1X6701$

evepyeldLs evdovs aeavTov ct7r6/3Xe7re els e^ie, TOUT' eon rriv Sco/cpa,TiKi7J>

xal Tavrrjs jui) els TO rvxbv ^tepos, dXX' els TO aKporarov, Kal o\l/ei ev

vovv Kal Bebv . . . 5td 5e TOV b^ei ev e^ol vovv, on Kal

The soul which knows itself flecopr/Ti/ccos is thus in a state of pure

contemplation, and this is simply the activity of the reasoning faculty

of the soul in its apprehension of Nous and God. These two activi-

ties the process of abstraction from the realm of Sense, and the

act of pure contemplation, though separately defined, belong together,

for the Cathartic activity is a necessary preliminary to the Theoretic

state. Both are implied in the words of Julian when in saying

that the end and beginning of philosophy are one namely, to knowoneself and be like the gods

86 he goes on to add that the short-cut

thereto is this "one must stand completely out of himself and knowthat he is divine, and keep his own vovs untiringly and unwaveringlyfixed on divine and undefiled and pure thoughts, and he must dis-

regard the body altogether. . . ," 87 So Macrobius in his Com-

mentary on Scipio's Dream,8 * after outlining Plotinus' treatment

of the Virtues, refers to the "e caelo descendit yv&Bi aeavTov" of

Juvenal and to the reply of the God to Croesus "If you know your-

self, you will be happy," and adds: "The one way for a manto know himself is to look back at the first beginnings of

his origin and birth, and not seek himself without. For so the

soul puts on her own virtues through the consciousness of her nobility,

and with these she afterwards tears herself away from the body and

is carried back whence she has descended, because she has not soiled

herself in her bodily state nor been burdened with impurities nor

does she seem ever to have deserted the Heavens, which she has

continued to possess by looking to them in her meditations." 89

85 Vol. II, pp. 7-8, Creuzer.86 Or. VII, 225D. yv&val re kavrbv Kal &<pofjiOLco6f]vaL TOIS Qeois.

87 226C-D. 17 O-UZTOJUOS 656s ka-riv auT-rj. Set yap avr6v &6p6us kKar^vai tavrov Kal

yv&vai OTI 6ei6s Itrrt, Kal TOV vovv jj,ev TOV tavTov aTpvTus Kal djueTaKW^Toos ffvvexav kv

TOIS deiois Kal axpo-vTOts Kal Kadapols vofi(j,a(Tiv, oXiycopeiv 8t TravTi) TOV (rw/iaros. . . .

881, IX, 2-3.

89 Cf. Hierocles, On the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, p. 157: lireiSfi Kal

nbvoi Trpos Tqv dewpiav T&V OVTOJS ayad&v eTreo~Tpa<frr]o~av, ovs aioj> Kal ets TO deiov ykvos

e'yypa<f>eiv . . . ol yvovTts eaimws diroXiwrtu T?}S

76

The extent to which the higher part of the soul can exercise its

theoretic activity in yielding itself up to the contemplation of Nous

and God will determine the extent to which we may become like

that which we contemplate, and the greater our likeness to the

Higher Nous which knows itself perfectly, the more perfectly maywe know ourselves in the psychic sense. 90 For there is truth in the

words of Critias in the Charmides: 91 "If any one possesses that

science of knowledge which knows itself, such a man would be like

what he possesses, just as he who possesses swiftness is swift, and he

who possesses beauty is beautiful, and he who possesses knowledge

knows"; "and," he adds defiantly, "OTCLV de dff yv&<nv avrriv avrrjs

Tt* tXV) yiyv&ffKuv TTOU avTos tavTov Tore <7T<u." "I don't dispute

that," said Socrates, "that when any one possesses that which

knows itself, he will know himself indeed." The contemplation of

pure knowledge which inherently knows itself until the soul becomes

like it is, according to the Neo-Platonist Commentators, the thoughtof the passage in the Alcibiades /, in which Socrates says that if

the soul is going to know itself, it must look at the region where

(To<pla, the virtue of soul, resides, and further that he who looks to

this and knows all that is divine God arid (ppovricns would most

of all know himself. 92Olympiodorus renders this in the Neo-Pla-

tonist terms, vovs and God,93 and it is this which Porphyry means

when he says of yv&Bi aavrov : "TO fiev ovv yiyvkaKtiv eavrov rrjv ava<popav

TI TO jLyvuffKew dtiv rrjv ^vxyv KCLI rbv vovv, cos kv TOUTCO rjfjL&v

According to Porphyry, too, the attainment of true

happiness is furthered by the application of the maxim in this psychicsense by the contemplation of the Good and the knowledge of

true Being.

To follow the abstract use of the phrase for self-knowledge throughall the literature of the Neo-Platonists would carry us too far afield

90 Cf. Plotinus En. V, III, 8, where he says that the soul is able to see Nous,

which primarily knows itself, through being, as it were, an image through

being made like to it more accurately as far as a part of the soul can come into

likeness with Nous.

91 169E.92 133B-C. See Proclus In Ale. I, vol. I, p. 85, Creuzer: /i&nj yap kan 17

yvccats eavr&v rfjs re T&V 6fio)v, "yyoxrecos /cat rijs els r6 <-co fteTrovffijs f^^/s, 5tA ai $ avoBos

tirl TT\V Btiorkpav hepyetav 5ta ravTrjs yivtTCu jueo^s TIJS eavrcoi> yv&aews. . . .

93 Vol. II, p. 8, Creuzer. Cf. Plotinus, En. V, III, 7, where he says that

pure intellect perceives God.94 Stob. Flor. 21, 28. Seep. 70.

77

in the realm of metaphysics for the purposes of this study. Yet

that it had primarily a connection with the yv&Oi, aavrbv of the Del-

phic temple is made evident by the passages which we have cited,

and by some others as well. 95 The connection is not always as near

and definite as in the instances before us, but it is perhaps not too

much to assume that whenever a Greek scholar after Plato wrestled

with the problems of the psychic life, he felt more or less vaguelywith Plotinus that he was obeying the God's command.

95 For instance, Damascius, Dubitationes et Solutiones F, 96, V, p. 156, ed.

Ruelle : TroAXoo-n? yap airb TOV yvtaaTov 17 yvuxns' &iro n&> ovv TOVTOV TP'ITIJ TLS towev elvai

... Kara dk rr,v ka-^Lr^v TO ycjvSxrKov eavro KO.I TO yv&dt. aavTov. And Hermes Tris-

megistus, Poemandres XIII, 22: voep&s Zyvus <reavT6i> /cat TOV Trarepa TOV

CHAPTER IX

SATTON Is DIFFICULT. How ATTAINED?

We recall that at one stage in the discussion in the Alcibiades I

Socrates asks Alcibiades whether TO yv&vai eavrbv happens to be

easy and to have been inscribed on the temple by some ordinary

man, or something difficult and not within the power of everyoneand Alcibiades replies: 'E/w>t /*&>, co 2cb/cpares, TroXXa/as plv edo%e -travrbs

elvai, 7roXXd/as 8e TrcryxdXeTroi'.1 The youthful Euthydemus in Xeno-

phon's Memorabilia apparently had no thought of its being anythingbut easy, for when Socrates asked him if he paid any attention to the

inscription when he saw it at Delphi, he answered promptly: MdAt' ou drjTd . . . Kal yap dr) iravv roOro ye fy\M]v eidevaC <rx^y yapav aXXo TL f/5?7, el ye wd' e^avrov eyiyvuvKov? So Croesus, we remember,said that when Apollo told him that if he knew himself he would be

happy, he thought that the easiest thing in the world.3 And Galen

even says of himself that when he was a lad he thought people praised

the Pythian command to know oneself overmuch, for it did not

seem to him a great injunction.4 It is evident that to unthinking

youth and the Lydian Croesus the words yv&Qi aavrbv might, for

literary purposes at least, mean merely 'know who you are,'5

but greater maturity of thought and experience brought men to a

better realization of their profundity. That yv&Bi aavrbv was

difficult, however, was a new idea to the individual only as it became

his own through experience or reflection, for it was an old saying,

attributed, like the maxim itself, to Thales,6 or Chilon,

7 or the Wise

1 129A. See p. 60.

2IV, II, 24. See p. 23.

3 Xen. Cyr. VII, 2, 21. See pp. 15-16.

4 Vol. V, p. 4. Kuhn. See p. 47.

5 Observe that Socrates asks Euthydemus if a man seems to know himself

who knows his name only (sec. 25). Macrobius (Sat. I, 6, 6) tells the story of

how Vettius Prajetextatus was asked by one of a group of scholars assembled

at his house why among the various terms applied to a man's dress Praetextatus

only was used as a proper name. Vettius prefaced his explanation by saying in

part: "... cum posti inscriptum sit Delphici templi et unius e numero septem

sapientum eadem sit ista sententia yv&Oi aavrov, quid in me nescire aestimandus

sum, si nomen ignore?"6 Stob. Flor. Vol. IV, p. 297; Meineke; Diog. Laert, I, 9, 35.

7 Stob. Flor. 21, 13.

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 79

Men generally.8 The Pythagorean "hearers," lamblichus tells

us,9 included it in the second class of questions in their catechism:10

ov8e rl TO xaXe7rdj>, ctXXd rl TO xaXeTrcbraro^' on TO CLVTOV yv&val evTW. 11

How early this became a part of the Pythagorean aKov^aTa we do

not know, but we meet the thought in a fragment of Ion's:12

TO yv&di <ravTov TOUT' CTTOS ^iv ov p.kya

epyov 6' OGOV Zeus JJLOVOS eirlo-TaTcu, dt&v.

Leopold Schmidt in his Ethik der Alten Griechen says this is the only

place in Greek literature, as far as he knows, where self-knowledgeis called impossible;

13 but it is probable, especially in view of the

period in which Ion wrote, that he was exclaiming over the difficulty

of the task rather than its impossibility. "This yv&Qi (ravTov," he

says, "is a little word, but the deed how great it is Zeus only knows!"This sentiment that ^v&Qi (ravTov is difficult occurs frequently in

discussions of the maxim, and the question of wherein the difficulty

lies is answerable only in terms of its application in each giveninstance. When Diogenes cited it to Alexander,

14 he meant that

it was hard for men to estimate aright their own ability and impor-

tance; but when Socrates asked Alcibiades whether or not it seemed

hard to him, he was thinking of knowing one's soul. 16

Sometimes we read that it is harder for us to know ourselves

than to know others, and then again that knowing others is more

difficult, but the statements involve no contradiction, for it all depends

upon the meaning of the maxim in a given context. So Crassus

in Cicero's De Oratore,1* after enumerating Antonius' characteristics

8Aristotle, Magn. Mor. II, 1213a, 14; lamblichus, Life of Pythagoras 83.

9Life of Pythagoras 83.

10 The first class asked what a thing is, the second what it is especially, andthe third what one must or must not do.

11 The next question was ov8e rl r6 fodiov, dXXd rl r6 PQCTTOV &TL ri> Wei xpyadai.12Frag. 55, Nauck. From Plut. Cons, ad A poll. 28. A similar distich

is to be found among the Comic fragments (no. 389, Koch vol. Ill, p. 481).

r6 yv&dt aavrov h XOTOIS obblv nkya

tpyq de TOVTO /x6yos ^Trio-Tartu 0e6s.

This is taken from the scholiast on Ale. I, 390 (Bekker.) with no word as to its

authorship. It is more likely to be a corruption of the Ion fragment than a

quotation from a different author.13

II, 396. Schmidt's quotation from Goethe's Gesprache mit Eckermannis excellent, but hardly apropos of Ion's meaning.

14 See pp. 19-20.

15 Ale. I, 129A-130E.18

III, 33.

80

as an orator, says of his own: "Quale sit non est meum dicere,

propterea quod minime sibi quisque notus est et difficillime de se

quisque sentit,"

meaning, of course, that it is difficult to form a

right estimate of one's own powers. But when Apollonius of Tyanatells Tigellinus that he uses his wisdom to know the Gods and under-

stand men, TOV yap eavrov yv&vai, xaXeTrcorepo*' elvau TO a\\ov yv&vai,11

he probably has reference to the idea that knowing oneself is the

beginning of philosophy. Augustine says that a man in charge of

a monastery may resolve to admit no one who is wicked, and asks

how he will avoid doing so." Those who are about to enter do not

know themselves"; he says "how much less dost thou know them?

For many have promised themselves to fulfill that holy life: . . .

they were sent into the furnace and they cracked";18 and Augustine's

thought apparently is that while we may be deceived about our

own strength of will, we can judge of it better than we can that of

another. Again it is sometimes assumed that a knowledge of self

includes the ability to know others likewise; as, for instance, whenSocrates tells Euthydemus that they who know themselves can the

better judge of other people,19 and when he tells Alcibiades20 that

only as a man knows himself in the three-fold way will he knowothers aright and be a fit leader among them. A story told byPhilostratus is also in point in this connection. In his Life of Diony-sius of Miletus^ he says that Dionysius once came to Sardis, where

he learned from his host Dorion, that a certain Polemon, of whose

eloquence he had heard fabulous tales, was to serve as advocate in

a law-suit the next day. In the course of his conversation with

Dorion about the coming event and about Polemon's oratory, he

suggested that Dorion tell him in what respects Polemon and him-

self excelled each other, but Dorion replied very discreetly: "Youwill be the better judge of yourself and him. < 7dp viro cro^tas otos

ffavTov re yiyvoxrKeiv, ertpov re M ayvofjaail"

This story of Philostratus' shows not only that the knowledgeof others was regarded as in a sense consequent upon the knowledge

17Philostratus, A poll. Ty. IV, 44. Cf. VI, 35 where in speaking of Apol-

lonius' later journeys to places which he had visited previously, he says: ira\iv

cAAeiTTOj'Ti TO jui) ovx 6juoicj> <pa.ive(rda.i. x&Xe7roO yap TOV yv&vcu. kavrov SOKOVVTOS

wdoTepov e-yorye rwov/mai TO jueu'cu TOV ao<f>6v laimp opovov. . . .

18 Enarratio in Psalmum XCIX, 11.

19 Xen. Mem. IV, II, 26.

20 Ale. 7, 133DfL21

Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists I, XXII, 4 p. 38, ed. Kayser.

81

of self, but it hints at another idea common in later philosophicalliterature namely, that the knowledge of self, and so the knowledgeof man, was limited to the philosophers. Tv&di aavrbv in any sense

was hard, but in its simpler ethical forces it was not conceived as

being beyond the attainment of each and all. Taken as an injunc-tion to know one's soul, however, it became possible for the Wise

Man only, and even for him perfect self-knowledge was unattainable,

for it is God alone who fully knows Himself. This is expressed in

part by Philo Judaeus, when he speaks of yvuBi vavrbv in connection

with the life of Jacob. Jacob was to tarry in Charran, the countryof the external senses, only a few days, we remember,

22 but a longer

period was allotted him in the city of the mind. He would never

be really able to comprehend his soul and his mind,23 Philo says,

yet those who practice the exercise of wisdom most perfectly proceedto leave Charran after they have learned fully the whole field of the

senses, as did Abraham, who attained to great progress in the com-

prehension of complete knowledge;24 "for when he knew most then

he especially renounced himself in order to come to an accurate

knowledge of true Being. For he who apprehends himself well,

by clearly grasping the universal nothingness of the creature, heartily

renounces himself, and he who renounces himself learns to know

Being." 25 Sextus Empiricus, the Skeptic, says

26 in his discussion of

the definition of man that man is not altogether to be comprehended,for Socrates was at a loss, although he continued in his investigation,

and said that he did not know what he was and how he was related

to the universe. 27"Democritus," Sextus says further, "in saying

man is what we all know, merely begged the question; for no one

will grant that man can be known off-hand d ye 6 TivBios cos ^kyiarov

^rrjfjLa TrpoWrfKev aurco TO yv&Qi (ravrov.. But granted that man can

be known at all, he will not turn the investigation over to all men

22 See p. 62.

23 De Somn. I, 56.

24 Sec. 59-60. A free rendering.

25 Sec. 60. In his Leg. Allegor. I, 91-92 he says the mind cannot understand

itself and asks: eir' OVK c^ets ot irepl deov aKeirTdnwot ovalas] ol yap rfjs t5tas ^uxfc

r-tjv ovaiav OVK uraen. TTWS av wept rrjs T&V 6\uv ^vxys d/cpijSaxrcuej' ;There is no real

contradiction here. He means simply that the mind can know itself and Godbut imperfectly at best, and it can know God only as it knows itself.

26Upos AOTUCOUS A. 264-6.

27 Sextus goes on to quote the Phaedrus passage here.

82

but only28 to the most careful philosophers." Hierocles shows

that this is the thought of certain of the Golden Verses of the Pytha-

goreans :29

ZeO Trarep, rj Tro\\&v Kt KOLK&V Xtacias

d Traffiv deltas ol'co rqi daliiovi xpwprat.

dXXci ffv 0dpcrei, tird Oelov yevos earl fipordiaiv

ols iepa irpO(pkpovva. <pv(ns de'iKvvffiv e/caora.

&v ei ffoi TL juereoTt, /cpar^crcts &v <re /ceXeuco

airo r&vde

It is necessary for the release from all evils, Hierocles explains,30

that we see our own essence, and this is what is meant by ot<# T$

daifjiovi XP&VT<U namely, ota $vxy- And he further says in effect that

while all have implanted within them the first impulse to a knowledgeof their own essence, it is impossible for every one to attain it, for

all cannot be philosophers, and they alone have turned to the con-

templation of the real Good.31

This idea that self-knowledge was possible only for the philoso-

pher is, of course, merely a re-statement from a different angle of

the Stoic doctrine, logically derived from Plato, that self-knowledgeis the beginning of philosophy. That self-knowledge could be but

imperfectly attained even by the philosopher is expressed in the

words of Heracleitus :

32^vxrjs Trelpara i&v OVK av e&vpoio, Trdvav kiriirop-

evonevos 6d6v ourco (3a6vv \6yov exet although we assume that Heraclei-

tus did not especially relate the thought to yv&6i aavrov. Theconnection of the maxim with the power of abstract contemplation

necessary to an apprehension of true Being or the Good, which wemet in the Alcibiades 7, means perforce that man can know himself

but intermittently, for only so can the soul be free from the limitations

of the flesh and in unison with the Divine which knows itself per-

fectly, call it NoOs, true Being, the Good, or God. "According to

one and the same knowledge, God knows both Himself and all

things," said Dionysius the Areopagite.33 It is but the personal

28 Reading /JLOVOIS with Bekker.29 vv. 61-66.30 Page 156, line 12, ed. Mullach.31Page 157.

32Frag. 45, Diels.

33 De Div. Nom. VII, 469C /card niav /cat aiir^v yvSxnv 6 6e6s oI5e /cai lavrbv Ka.1 rd

ir&vra. . . . Cf. 470A: xwiybs tan Traces yvaxreus Ka8' ijv yvufferai TIS /cat

Kal T& aXXa.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 83

way of putting the thought of the self-conscious Universe of the Stoic,34

or the self-knowledge of the Nous of Plotinus.35 "It is in knowledgethat the Gods surpass us," says Julian, "for i\ydrai . . .focos KCU

avrots T&V KO\U>I> r6 avrovs yiyvuffKew And again he says:37 6 jap

i^ueTs TTOTC, rovro 6 deos ad. ye\olov (ovv av) etrj rov 0eoi> iavrov M eldwai

. . . iravra jap avros eoTip, elirep Kal kv eauroi Kal irap' eaurw ex^t T&V

OTT&ffOVV OVT&V TCLS (HTiaS. . . .

But if this self-knowledge, while so fundamental, is withal so

difficult, then how can a man know himself? This was essentially

the question which both Euthydemus38 and Alcibiades39 put to

Socrates when he tried to impress upon them the importance of giv-

ing heed to the maxim. In neither case does Socrates answer the

question directly, but he implies by his method that dialectic is the

surest way, and in the Alcibiades I that method leads at length to a

vision of self through the vision of (ppovycris and God. A lack of self-

knowledge, moreover, was for Socrates virtually synonymous with

that reprehensible false tonceit of wisdom which he attacked so

incessantly, and for that he says plainly that dialectic is the remedy.40

But there were other answers suggested for this well-nigh insoluble

problem, and one of these grew out of the old saying "A friend is a

second self." 41 That a friend helps us to know ourselves is stated

in Aristotle's chapter on Friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics,

and while the words of the maxim are not used there, they are impliedin the corresponding passage of the Eudemian Ethics, and occur

unmistakably in the Magna Moralia. In the Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle raises the question as to whether the happy man has need

of friends, and among the arguments brought forward to prove that

he has is the fact that in living the fullest life (/ TOJ ^v KOI evepyeiv)

it contributes to his happiness to contemplate noble actions and

34 See Philo Judaeus Leg. Allegor. I, 91. 17 yap T&V 6\uv ^ux 1) ^ 9d>* &TI Kara

tvvoiav.

35 Plotinus' God was beyond NoOs and self-knowledge was not predicatedof Him, although a grasp of the idea of Him leads to self-knowledge in the soul.

Enn. V, III, 7.

M Or. VI, 184B-C.37 185B.38 Xen. Mem. IV, II, 30.

39 Ale. I, 124B.40 See p. 42. Proclus (on Ale. I, pp. 8-9) says in effect that the dialectic

method leads to self-knowledge.41 aXXos 'HpaKA^s, AXXos a6r6s. Eud. Eth. 1245a. 30.

84 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

recognize them as his own; and a man can contemplate his friend

better than himself, and he can see his friend's deeds better also. 42

Moreover, a good man sees himself and his actions in his friend

because his friend is likewise good and a friend is a second self.43

In the corresponding passage of the Eudemian Ethics** Eudemustells us that this full life (/car' evepydav) is the being alive to our

perceptions and the acquisition of knowledge, and to have perceptionof oneself and acquire knowledge of oneself is most to be desired.

If one could isolate the knowledge of self from living, he says, it

would make no difference whether you knew yourself or another

instead of yourself;45 and he adds farther on: TO ovv TOV piXov alcrdaveffdai

TO avTOV TTOJS CLvajKrj aiadavecrScLL eu>ai, /cat TO <TOV <pi\ov yvupleLV ro>avTov TTCOS yvupl$eiv.^ The author of the Magna Moralia cites the

maxim definitely.47 "Since it is very hard" he says, "as some of the

Wise have declared, to know oneself (yvQwu avTov) . . we are unable

to contemplate ourselves from within ourselves. And because weare not able to know ourselves, obviously we do the very things

for which we find fault with others. . . Accordingly, just as when wewish to see our face, we see it by looking into a mirror, likewise

when we wish to know ourselves, we would acquire the knowledge

by looking at our friend. For our friend, we say, is a second self."

A friend, then, by virtue of his similar ideals and their expressionin character and conduct may reveal to us our own, and this can

afford us not only the happiness arising from an appreciation of our

attainment,48 but the pleasurable sense of having gained self-know-

ledge. Yet we observe that Aristotle is speaking only of a friendship

between those whose ideals are lofty and whose actions are noble,

and the kind of self-knowledge which we may reach in this way is

limited to a realization of our own worth. The author of the Ivlajna

Moralia, on the other hand, makes no qualifications as to the char-

42 Nic. Eth. IX, 9, 1169b. 33. Cf. Plutarch. De Cohib. Ira c.l.

43erepos Tap ai'ros 6 <pl\os kanv 1170b.6.

44VII, 12, 1244b. 21 ff.

45 The Greek reads: d ovv ris airorknoi /ecu 7ro7<re TO yiv&aKtiv aflrd KO&' O.VTO

. . . oWev av diapfpoi $ TO yivuffKew aXXov avd' O.VTOV. See Fritzsche End. Eth. p. 331.46 1245a. 36.

47II, 15, 1213a, 14 ff. See c. VI p. 3. Cicero evidently has this saying in

mind in his De Amicitia VII, 23 "Verum enim amicum qui intuetur, tamquamexemplar aliquod intuetur sui.

"

48 The meaning of Aristotle is admirably explained by Stewart in his Notes

on the Nic. Eth. vol. II, p. 385-386.

85

acter of the friends involved, and with him it is rather the knowledgeof our faults than of our virtues which we may derive by looking

at a friend. Galen, we remember, thought that he had found a

way to know himself by having a friend reveal his faults, but he

proposed to use the friend not as a reflection of himself, but as a

critic.49 In fact, such a person could hardly be called a friend in

the Aristotelian sense, for he must be absolutely unbiased in his

attitude and not necessarily similar in character.50

The figure of the mirror to which the author of the Magna Moralia

refers goes back to the Alcibiades /,51 and it is used occasionally in

connection with yv&Ot, o-avTov by later writers. Seneca says that

mirrors were invented ut homo ipse se nosset, and he elaborates

the theme. "Many results come from their use," he says: "first

a conception of oneself, then counsel for certain ends; if a man is

good-looking, the mirror counsels that he avoid disgrace; if ugly,

it makes him know that his physical defects ought to be counter-

balanced by moral virtues; if young, it warns him in the flower of

his age that it is the time for learning, and for daring brave deeds;

if old, it counsels him to lay aside unbecoming conduct and think

somewhat of death. To this end the nature of things has given

us an opportunity to see ourselves."52

Olympiodorus compared the

yv&di, vavTov on the temple of Apollo to the mirrors placed on Egyp-tian temples, which he says are able to do the same thing as the

Pythian inscription.53

Stobaeus, moreover, felt the suggestion of

49 See pp. 50-51.

60 While recognizing one's own condition by seeing another in like state is

quite different from recognizing similarities of character, a passage in Statius'

Thebaid is of some interest in this connection. Tydeus, mortally wounded by

Melanippus, had hurled a weapon at him in return, and as he lay dying, he beggedfor the head of Melanippus. Capaneus found Melanippus. and brought him,

still breathing, on his shoulder to Tydeus. The poem continues:

"Erigitur Tydeus vultuque occurrit et amens

Laetitiaque iraque, ut singultantia vidit

Ora trahique oculos seseque agnovit in illo

Imperat absciscum porgi." (VIII, 751-754)61 133A.62 Nat. Quaest. I, XVII, 4. The chapter begins with the words: "Deridean-

tur nunc philosophi, quod de speculi natura disserant". ... Cf. De Ira II,

36, 1: "Quibusdam ut ait Sextius, iratis profuit adspexisse speculum. Pertur-

bavit illos tanta mutatio sui, velut in rem praesentem adducti non agnoverunt se."

63 In Ale. /, vol. II, p. 9, Creuzer. Cf. Augustine, Sermo LVIII, 13: "Com-memora fidem tuam, inspice te: sit tamquam speculum tibi Symbolum tuum. "

86

the maxim so strongly in connection with the figure of the mirror

that in his chapter on TV&BL ZCLVTOV he included an extract from Bias

which reads: 0ecopet wcrTrep ev KCLTOTTTPM rets GCLVTOV 7rpaets, IVa ras nev

KaXds eTri/coov-tTjs, ras 8e ato-xpas KaXforTfls.54 There is, besides, a half-

humorous allusion to the figure in Lucian's essay on Pantomime. 55

"The applause of the spectators would know no bounds," he says,

"when each of them recognizes his own qualities and comes to see

himself in the pantomime as in a mirror, and what he is accustomed

to experience and what he is accustomed to do. For then mencannot restrain themselves for delight, but they burst into applausewith one accord, as they see, each one, the likeness of his own soul,

and come to know themselves." drcx^cos yap, he continues, TO

kt\(piKov eKelvo TO Tv&Bi aeavrov e/c rvjs 6eas tKelvrjs CLVTOLS TrepLylyverai,

and they go away from the theatre cognizant of what they oughtto choose and what to avoid, instructed in what they did not knowbefore.

" That a man may see himself reflected not only in theatrical

representations but in literature is implied in one of Martial's epi-

grams:56

"Hominem pagina nostra sapit.

Sed non vis, Mamurra, tuos cognoscere mores

Nee te scire. Legas Aetia Callimachi."

Philo Judaeus saw in the purification rites of the Hebrews a

means of acquiring one kind of self-knowledge.57 He says that most

people use pure water only for purposes of purification, but Moses

had some of the prepared ashes from the sacred fire put in a vessel

with water, and instituted the sprinkling of the candidates for puri-

fication with this mixture. And the reason for this, he says, was that

he wished rous kirl TJ\V TOV OVTOS depaireiav IOVTCLS yv&vai irporepov eavrovs

Kai Tr)v Iblav ovalai> 5B It is our bodily essence earth and water

of which Moses reminds us through this rite, Philo says further,

because he understood that the most beneficial purification is just

this TO yv&vai TWO, eavrov /cat c oi'coi> cos ovdejjuas (nrovdfjs a^tcop, reppas

KCLL vdaros, <TW6Kpa6r)5g "For in coming to know this," Philo adds,

"a man will straightway cast aside his treacherous conceit, and

64 Stob. Flor. 21, 11.

56 Sec. 81.

68 X, IV, 10-12.67 De Sac. (Sp. Leg. I) 262-265.88 Sec. 263.69 Sec. 264.

87

discard his excessive pride, and be well-pleasing to God." This

same idea is expressed in other passages in Philo,60 and man's humble

origin is one of his frequently recurring themes. The sprinkling

with ashes and water would bring man to a truer self-estimate, he

felt, and hence was a means of aiding him to know himself in the

sense of knowing his measure. And this realization of their own

nothingness Philo conceived as essential for those who would seek

to know the superior greatness of God.

The Stoic doctrine that man is a part of the soul of Nature led

the Stoics to emphasize a knowledge of the Universe not only as

something to be included in self-knowledge, but as a means to attain-

ing it. This is expressed several times by Cicero and repeatedly

by the Church Fathers. We recall that Cicero says in his De Fini-

bus61 that without a knowledge of natural philosophy we cannot see

what force certain maxims (including nosce te] have, and again that

we must enter into the nature of things and see deeply what it de-

mands, or we cannot know ourselves; and he also emphasizesthis thought in the passage from the De Legibus which we cited

at length.62

Among the Church Fathers, Clement of Alexandria

says of the maxim that "it can be an injunction to the pursuit of

knowledge, for it is not possible to know the parts without knowing the

essence of the whole; and we must concern ourselves with the origin

of the world, as through a knowledge of this it will be possible to

understand the nature of man."63 And Minucius Felix says in his

Octamus-^ "I do not deny . . . that man ought to know himself

and look around and see what he is, and whence, and why whether

collected from the elements or formed harmoniously from atoms, or

rather made, fashioned, and animated by God; and we cannot

investigate and draw forth this knowledge without inquiring into

the Universe, since all things are so closely connected and bound

together that unless you examine diligently the methods of divinity

you can not know humanity. ..."The Stoics thus said virtually that the way to know oneself

is to know God an idea more frequently expressed than its equally

60 Cf. De Sac. Abel et Caini 55-56: /XCM^M^OS yap rrjs I8iov irtpi iravTa uTrep/ftoATjs

obdevdas fj.efj.vr]a"fi /ecu TTJS TOV 0eov irepl iravra virep(3o\rjs . See also De Somn. I, 211-212;

De Posteritate Caini 115.81 See pp. 67-68.82 See p. 69.

83 Strom. I, 60.

84 Sec. 17.

88 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

true converse that to know God one must know himself.65 For it

all depends upon what we mean by God and Self-knowledge. If

man is proud and presumptuous or if his God is a far-off majestic

Being, man must measure himself aright before he can comprehendGod's greatness. But if man is seeking to realize his union with a

God who permeates all Nature, or with a God of abstract Reason,he can come into that realization of his true self only as he apprehendsGod. This last thought becomes warm with religious feeling, more-

over, when we read Augustine's expression of it in the chapter of

his Confessions entitled Homo Sese Totum Non Novit:"Although

no 'man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which

is in him,'66

yet there is something in man which the spirit of manwhich is in him does not know. But thou, Lord, who hast madehim knowest him altogether. . . . What I know about myself I

know by thine enlightening me, and what I do not know about

myself I shall not know until my darkness become as noonday in

Thy sight."67

85 See pp. 45 and 94.

86 From I Cor. II, 11.

67Augustine, Confessions X, V, 7.

CHAPTER X

TN120I SATTON IN EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE

We have found occasion now and then in the preceding chapters

to quote from the writings of the Fathers of the Christian Church

in illustration of certain points touching the use of yv&Qi aavrbv.

Direct allusions to the apophthegm are not numerous, however,

in view of the large body of literature which these men have left

to us, although the theme of self-knowledge found a place in their

thought in other connections, and received a treatment at their

hands somewhat similar to that accorded the maxim in non-Christian

writings, besides taking on a few conceptions which were in a sense

peculiar to Christianity. The prominence given the maxim or the

theme seems to have varied somewhat with different authors. In

studying the works of the Fathers of the first five centuries we look

largely in vain for either theme or maxim among the scanty remains

of the literature of the Apostolic Age,1 and in some of the later more

voluminous works, such as those of Chrysostom and Hieronymus.2

On the contrary, Clement of Alexandria of the 2nd century is one of

our most fruitful sources for ideas connected with the maxim directly,

and the theme of self-knowledge is later particularly recurrent in

Ambrose. Clement, however, while the most valuable of the 2nd

century Fathers for his discussions of yv&dt, (ravrov, does not stand

alone among his contemporaries in referring to the apophthegm,for it occurs in the anti-heretical polemics of Irenaeus and Hippolytusof the Eastern church, and in the works of Minucius Felix and

Tertullian of the Western.

Clement not only gives interpretations of the maxim, but following

the tradition already established by Jewish writers, who tried to

account for the best in Greek thought by saying that the Greeks had

borrowed from the Hebrews, he maintains that yv&Bi aavrbv and

certain other apophthegms really originated in the Old Testament.

He says3 that one of the Greek Sages drew ITTOV 6e& from "Abraham

proceeded as the Lord spake to him"4. . . that 'Eyyva, irapa 8' arr]

1 This may be due somewhat to the fact that we have but a fraction of the

literature of the 1st century extant.

2 It occurs in one of Hieronymous' Epistles, however. See p. 44, n. 30.

8 Strom. II, 15, 70-71.

* Gen. XII, 4. Cf. Ambrose De Abraham II, II, 5.

90 "KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE

is from the words of Solomon, saying, "My son, if thou become

surety for thy friend, thou wilt give thine hand to the enemy,"5

. . . and more mystically the yv&di, eavrov is taken from the passage"Thou hast seen thy brother, thou hast seen thy God."6 A little

farther on he adds: aaupkarepov de TO yv&Qi VOLVTOV Trapeyyv&v 6 Mwarjs

\eyti TToXXaxts Trpoorexe aeaura;. 7 Clement's pupil and successor

Origen, who became one of the most learned and constructively

influential of the Fathers, made use of the maxim in his oral teaching,

as we have learned from the panegyric of him by his disciple, Gregory

Thaumaturgus,8 and he treated the theme of self-knowledge with

particular fulness in connection with a clause in the Song of Songs

"If thou know not (thyself), O thou fairest among women." 9 He

begins his exposition of the verse by saying:10 "Unius Chilonis

scilicet ex septem quos apud Graecos singulares fuisse in sapientia

fama concelebrat, haec inter caetera mirabilis fertur esse sententia

quae ait: Scito teipsum vel cognosce teipsum. Quod tamen Salomon,

quern praecessisse omnes hos tempore et sapientia ac rerum scientia

in praefatione nostra docuimus, ad animam quasi mulierem . . .

dicit 'Nisi cognoveris temetipsam, O pulchra inter mulieres ..."Writers after Clement and Origen gather much of what they have

to say about self-knowledge around this text11 and the "Take heed

to thyself" of the Pentateuch. Basil wrote a homily on Upoaexe

Secump, and expositions of the verse in the Song of Songs are numerous.

Discussions and allusions pertinent to our subject are not confined

8 Prov. VI, 1-2.

6 This is not in the Bible. See note on Trans, by Wilson in Anti-Nicene

Christian Library.7 Ex. X, 28; XXXIV, 12; Deut. IV, 9. Cf. Philo Judaeus, De Mig. Abraham 8:

TT&VTO. TOV aiicva 'yivaxTKe aeavrov, oos nal Mcouo^s TroXXaxou SidaaKti \kyuv

8 See p. 39.

1,8.10 In Cant. Cant. II, 56. Extant in the Latin trans, of Hieronymus. Pat.

Graec. Vol. XIII, p. 123.

11 Ambrose (Hex. VI, 6, 39) declares that "Nosce te ipsum" is not a commandof the Pythian Apollo, but of Solomon, although Moses wrote long before in

Deuteronomy "Attende tibi, O homo, attende tibi." Cf. In Ps. CXVIII, II,

13:'

'Nosce te ipsum quod Apollini Pythio assignant gentiles viri, quasi ipse auctor

fuerit huius sententiae; eum de nostro usurpatum ad sua transferant. ..." Also

Cyril of Alex. Contra Julianum I, 14-15. He reminds us that Moses was older

than the Greek Sages, and says that Pythagoras and Thales gathered much of

their lore in Egypt.

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 91

to these texts, however, for we find suggestive passages in Euse-

bius's Praeparatio Evangelica, and in a variety of ecclesiastical

works of the 4th and 5th centuries, especially in those of Ambroseand Augustine. The familiarity of the more important of the Fathers

with Greek literature is reflected in their writings through their

introduction of Stoic tenets and other conceptions which Greek

philosophy connected with the apophthegm, although the assiduous-

ness with which those of later generations studied the works of

their predecessors resulted in a considerable degree of repetition

from purely ecclesiastical sources. Accordingly, while it is not

difficult to distinguish ideas which come ultimately from Greek

philosophy from those which arose within the Church, we cannot

alv.ays determine the immediate source from which a given author

has taken his ideas regarding self-knowledge. A study of self-

knowledge in this class of literature thus lends itself to a topical

rather than a chronological treatment, and owing to the very repeti-

tousness of the Fathers, a summary of their teaching touching this

point may be made rather brief.

The reflection in these writers of certain themes which philo-

sophy connected with the maxim has become obvious to some extent

through citations already made from their works. 12Naturally

the doctrines most frequently given expression were those of the

Stoics. Clement of Alexandria brings up a Stoic theme in his

chapter on the Aims of the Gnostics when he says:13

TCLVTV /cat

rov vow ei\Ti(paiJL6v, 'iva db&nev b iroLOvptv, /cat TO yv&dt, GCLVTOV tvravda,

eidevaL <p' $ jejova^ev. He does not say with the Stoics that

"we are born to serve society," however, but that we have

been born to be obedient to the commandments, if we wish to

be saved. Origen in his exposition of the verse in the Song

of Songs to which we have referred, treats the passage, of course, as

symbolical of Christ and the Church, and he goes on to say that

Christ in speaking to the souls of believers places the greatest safety

and happiness in their knowledge of themselves. Then he saysthat the soul ought to take knowledge of itself in two ways with

regard to what it is in substance, and what it is in its affections, and

he explains each of these points in detail. By its affections he

means the way the soul reacts to certain emotions and experiences,

12 See pp. 39 f. and 87 f.

13 Strom. VII, III, 20.

92

and apropos of this kind of self-knowledge he introduces the ques-tions "What ought to be done? What avoided? Wherein do youlack? Wherein do you abound? What ought to be corrected and

what cherished?" 14Regarding the substance of the soul, which

he calls a more difficult problem,15 he says that the soul ought to

know whether it is corporeal or incorporeal, whether both bodyand soul are simple, or composed of two or three or more substances16

. . . how the soul was made . . . whether the virtue of the soul

can approach and depart, or whether it is unchangeable and if once

acquired does not flow back." 17 The most recurrent Stoic theme

in this literature was that of man's knowledge of himself in relation

to the Universe. Basil says in his Hexaemeron that in this city of

the Universe was our first native country, and that there we see

the origin of man;18 and in his Homily on Hpoo-exe SeaimS, that we

may trace out the Creator in ourselves as in a certain small uni-

verse. 19 And Ambrose says: "Est . . . prudentis agnoscere se

ipsum, et quemadmodum a sapientibus definitum est, secundumnaturam vivere.

"20 Ambrose brings out still another phase of

Stoic teaching in connection with the story of Joseph's being sold

into Egypt. God gave through Joseph a means of consolation to

those who are in servitude, he says. "He assigned him an overseer

that men might learn that even in the worst circumstances character

can be superior, and no condition is devoid of virtue, si animus se

uniuscuiusque cognoscat\ the flesh is subject to servitude, not the

mind. 21 ..."

The direct influence of Plato appears in a passage in Ambrose's

Hexaemeron^ "We are one thing," he says, "ours is another,what is around us is another. That is, we are mind and soul, ours

14 In Cant. Cant. 56 ft. See Pat. Grace. XIII, 125B.15 125D.16 126B.17 127A: "Sed et hoc adhuc ad cognoscendam semetipsam anima requirat

si virtus animae eius accedere potest et decedere. ..."18 Hex. VI, 1.

19 Sec. 7 : iav yap irpoo-txys (TfavrQ, ob5h Serjtry e/c TTJS ru>v oXo>j> KaTavKevrjs rbv

AijnLovy6v k&xvtijeiv, dXX' kv <rea.VT$ oiovd /uKp<3 run, SiaKoovicjj.20 De Excessu Fratris Sui Satyri I, 45.21 De Joseph Patriarcha I, IV, 20.22

VI, 42. Farrar says that Ambrose read the works of Plato with warmadmiration (Lives of the Fathers, vol. II, p. 123).

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 93

are the members of the body and its sensibilities.around us are money,

servants, and the furnishings of the outer life. Attend to yourself,

therefore, and know yourself that is, not what sort of limbs youhave nor how much physical endurance, nor how great possessions,

nor how much power, but the character of your soul and mind."

We feel also something of the Neo-Platonist spirit of abstraction

from the body in one of Ambrose's comments relative to the familiar

verse in the Song of Songs:"Cognosce igitur te, et naturae tuae

decorem, et exi quasi exuta vinculis pedem, et nudo exserta vestigio;

ut carnalia integumenta non sentias, vestigium mentis tuae corporalia

vincula non implicent." 23 And a little before he says of Paul's

being caught up into the third Heaven that "his soul had risen from

his body . . . and while he was made a stranger to himself, he held

within himself the ineffable words which he heard." 24

A limited heirarchy of spirits naturally came into Christianity

through the old Hebrew faith and the teachings of Philo, thoughit was limited indeed as compared with the numerous intermediaries

between God and man developed by the Gnostics, against whose

extreme ideas Christianity inevitably protested.25

Origen, how-

23 De Isaac et Anima I, IV, 16.

24 Sec. 11. Cf. VIII, 64 where he says: "In ilia ergo amaritudine non cog-

novit se anima; corruptibile enim corpus aggravat animam, et terrenum habita-

culum cito inclinatur. Cognoscere autem semper se debet. Sed tentatus est

et Petrus, et non se cognovit et Petrus; nam si cognovisset, non negavisset auc-

torem." Cf. also Aug. In John XXIII, 10: "Sed relinque foris et vestem tuam et

carnem tuam, descende in te. ..."25 Irenaeus in his attempt to overthrow the intricate Gnostic theory of Crea-

tion, and to show that God alone was the Creator of the world, bases one of his

arguments upon the essential self-knowledge of each of the beings concerned.

The Gnostic theory held that Achamoth outside the Pleroma, although herself

the image of the Propator, suffered among other passions the passion of ignorance,

and the Demiurge whom she created in the image of the Nous (who was the Only-

Begotten of the Father) without fully realizing by what means he was doing it,

created an order of aeons which was an image of the Aeons within the Pleroma.

In his refutation of this theory, Irenaeus asks if the Demiurge, who was an

image of NoOs formed by the Savior through Achamoth, was then ignorant of

himself, ignorant of Creation, ignorant too of the Mother. ... If so, the Savior

must have made him an imperfect image, or else the very NoOs of the Father was

ignorant of himself; and again he says that if the Aeons are from Logos, and

Logos from NoOs, and NoOs from Bythus (the Propator), they must be similar,

like successive lights from a torch, and either all will have the passion of ignorance

or Achamoth cannot have it. And if all have it, then the Propator would be

ignorant of Himself! What is more, the Logos cannot be ignorant of the Father,

94

ever, makes the soul's knowledge of itself include a knowledge of

its place in the order of spirits of whether there are spirits of the

same substance with itself, and others not the same but different

from it, and whether the substance of angels is the same as its own. 26

Self-knowledge was definitely predicated of the members of the Trin-

ity severally and collectively, particularly after the rise of Neo-

Platonism. Augustine raises the question of the self-knowledge

of the Trinity,27 and self-knowledge was asserted separately of the

Father28 and of Christ29 by others writers, while Dionysius the

Areopagite declares that the Angels know themselves.30

The God of the Christians, like the God of the Jews,31 was too

great for man's full comprehension,32 but the Church Fathers empha-

sized the thought that self-knowledge was a necessary help toward

an apprehension of Him.33 Hence Athanasius interprets the verse

in the Song of Songs to mean: Tv&di aeavrov Trp&rov, Iva KCLL ejue yv&vaiu and Gregory of Pisida says

35 in effect that to see God a

as they maintain; if he is not ignorant of himself, he must know the Father to

know in whom he exists. (Adv. Her. II, 7, 2 & 17, 5 & 8.)

26 In Cant. Cant. 58: "agnitionem sui anima requirat si est aliquis ordo. . . ."

27Confessions, XIII, 11. 12.

28 Dion. Areop., De Div. Norn. VII, II, 470; Epiphanius LXXIV, 4, 10

'Eavrov yap 6 Seos yivwKei. Cf. LXXVI, 11.

29 Prudentius Apotheosis 963-969:

"... Dignusne videtur

Qui testis sibi sit, seque ac sua carna novit."

3 De Eccles. Hierarch. II, III, 4.

31 See Bigg, Christian Platonists, pp. 9-10.

32 See Tertullian, Apologeticum 17: "Deus unus est . . incomprehensibilis,.

etsi per gratiam repraesentetur; . . . Quod vero immensum est soli sibi notum

est."Arnobius, Adv. Gentes II, 74: "Neque enim promptus est cuiquam Dei

mentem videre . . . Homo animal caecum et ipsum se nesciens nullis potest

rationibus consequi." Ambrose De Fide V, IP, 237: "Paulus raptus usque ad

tertium coelum se ipsum nescivit: Arius in stercore volutatus Deum scivit.

Paulus dicit de se ipso' Deus scit,

' Arius de Dio dicit,'

Ego novi.' '

Augustine,

Sermo LII, 23: "In te enim quod est, potes nosse: in eo qui te fecit quod est

. . ., quando potes nosse?"

33 Cf. pp. 45 and 88.

34Frag. In Cant. Cant. Patrologia Graeca, vol. 27, p. 1348. Cf. Basil, Hex.

IX, 6. (Pat. Grace, vol. XXIX p. 204) : KCHTOI ov na\\ov e ovpavov /ecu 777$ r&r

ye (rvver&s kavrov t%tTaaa.VTO. cos (prjaw 6 Trpoip^TTjs 'EdaviJ.a<TTa)dri 17 yvtiffis aov c c/iou. . . ..

"Hex. 602 ff.:

95

man must take the successive steps of knowledge and at length he

finds that he must take into consideration the yv&di. aavTov. In one

sense man's attempt to know himself, by reason of its very

failure, makes him realize the greatness of his Creator, and this

is the purport of a passage in Hilary of Potier's De Trinitate;

"ipsum me quoque nesciens, ita sentio; ut te magis eo quod mei

sum ignarus admirer." And Augustine says:37 "Ex me quippe

intelligo quam sit mirabilis et incomprehensibilis scientia tua quame fecisti, quando nee me ipsum comprehendere valeo quern fecisti.

"

To know God in the philosophical sense, however, was possible onlyfor the elect, even as in the pagan mind it was possible only for the

philosopher. So Origen says of the knowledge of the substance of the

soul:38"Apparet ad dilectas quasque animas haec dici, quibus cum

gratia multa sentiendi et intelligendi a Deo data sit . . ."; andsuch souls, he goes on to say, must not neglect themselves if those

who desire to be built up in the faith are to be instructed. Thechosen few, according to the Gnostics, could know God by knowledge

(yv&o-is) but the rest could know him by faith only. Yet this faith

was felt by Augustine to be in a sense superior to the path of philo-

sophical knowledge, in that it opened the way for God to actively

reveal Himself and man's nature in the soul. While the Christian,

he says in effect, may not know the distinctions between the different

kinds of philosophy even, he does not fail to know that from one

true and supreme God we have a nature made after his image, "andthe doctrine by which we know Him and ourselves." 39 And againhe says:

40 ". . . . omnes sibi noti erunt et cogitationes suas ignotasnon habebunt, cum venerit Dominus, et illuminaverit abscondita

tenebrarum. "

Man's self-knowledge as revealed by faith and the teaching of

the Church included chiefly two things that God created man in

His own image, and that man is by nature sinful and in need of

OVTU re \onrbv etirep e d /

y'c>crtas

rd Tv&di (ravr6v els diavKef/iv Xa/3oi

TOS eaimjj <ri'X\aXi7<roi KCU fjiaBoi. (vv. 632-635)38XII, 53.

37 De Trinitate XV, 13. Cf. De Anima et Eius Origine IV, 12.

38 In Cant. Cant. II, 59. Pat. Grace, vol. XIII, p. 128A-B.39 De Civ. Dei VIII, 10, 2: . . . "et doctrinam, qua eumnosque noverimus. "

*Sermo XLVII, 23. Cf. Lactantius, Ep. Div. Inst. LX: . . . "Deusrelevavit se nobis et ostendit; ut . . . simul cum ipso Deo nosmetipsos, quos'

mpietas dissociaverat, nosceremus. ..."

96

repentance. These doctrines were essentially Hebraic, but the

relating of them to yv&6i aavrov and to self-knowledge generallywas in the main peculiar to the Christian Fathers,

41 as was also the

occasional connecting of the maxim with the doctrine of immortality.That God created man and created him in his own image is a themewhich occurs frequently not only in the Hexaemeral writings, but

in other commentaries and anti-heretical literature as well. Clement

of Alexandria says of the maxim:42 "It means 'know whose imagethou art,' what is thine essence, and what thy creation"; and Hip-

polytus says in his Refutation of All Heresies:*3 roureoTi TO I>co0i

aeavTov, eirLyvovs TOV TreiroLriKora Qeov. "What is se noscere," asks

Ambrose,44

"except for each one to know that he is made after the

image and likeness of God?" And elsewhere he says:45

"Cognosce te,

anima, that thou art not of earth or clay, since God hath breathed

upon thee and made thee to become a living soul."

But while God created man, unlike the rest of the Universe,46 in

his own image, man is human, and by reason of his humanity, proneto sin. We are familiar with the fact that knowing that we are humancame to be attached to yv&di (ravrov, but outside of Church literature

it usually meant to recognize one's inability to cope with the Godsbecause of the limitations of the flesh, whereas in the writings of

the Fathers it means '

recognize that you are a sinner,' and further,

41 The Epicurean Philodemus, however, may have the maxim in mind whenhe asks: TTCOS yap /juaelv rbv anapravovra w &Tr6yvu[a]na AieXXei, yiyv&cntuv O.VTOV

OVK OVTO. reXe (t) ov Kdl iLiywt]< i> (TKuv oTi TravTes OLfJ.apTo.veLV ei&Oaffiv; (llepi Ilap-

pa<nas 46. p. 22 (Teubner). And Libanius uses it in the sense of knowing the

frailty of man's nature in view of the power of evil, when he makes Timon the

Misanthrope say: dXX' cTreidrj Oe&v TIS d^eiXero (JLOV TTJV a\Kvv not rr\v ^WXTIV tua-d^pt

Tijv k^rfv Kol Kara TO ypanna. TO AeX^iKOJ' fyvuv t/j.avTov nai TI TTOT' kcniv avdpuTros

KO.I ocrov Kaiibv effTi avveioov /ecu uxnrep <pvyijs avvQrujLO, \a./3<j)i> Troppco fj,ev TIJS Trpos &v6p&7rovs

6ni\ias kytvbwv. . . . (Or. XII, 11).42 Strom. V, 4, 23.

43 X, 34. In Pat. Graec. vol. XVI, p. 3454.44 In Ps. CXVIII, II, 13.

45 In Ps. , XVIII, X, 10. Cf. In Ps. CXVIII, XIII, 20: "Bene timet, quihominem se esse cognoscit; . . . sciamus quia homines sumus, ad imaginemscilicet et similitudinem Dei facti. ..." Cf . also Hex. VI, 8, 50. Augustine (Sermo

LII, 17) bids us look for faces of the Trinity within ourselves, since we are

made in God's image.46 See Gregory of Nysja In Cant. Cant. Homily II, P. G. vol. 44, p. 805 C.

yv8i -jroffov virtp T-r\v \onrriv KT'KTLV irapa TOV TTCTTOITJKOTOS Tert/7<r(u. OVK ovpavos yeyovtv

TOV 0eoi), ov aeXrivri, ovx

97

'come to a better self-knowledge by way of repentance.'

Augustine

says in one of his Sermons: "Thou darest perchance to judge about

the heart of another what thou dost not know: but thou knowest

thyself to be sinful"47;and in quoting the verse in Romans "

All menhave sinned and come short of the glory of God," 48 he says:" Agnosce

te, infirmitas humana."49Touching the further point Clement of

Alexandria says50 that he who according to the word of repentance

knows his life to be sinful, will loose it from the sin by which it is

drawn away, and when he has loosed it, he will find it, according to

the obedience which lives again to faith and dies to sin. And he adds:

TOUT' ovv eon TO evpelv rfy ^vxty TO yv&vcu, iavrbv. Ambrose, too,

says of the words "If thou know not (thyself), thou fairest amongwomen": "hoc est, nisi cognoscas te mortalem, rationalem, et tua

peccata fatearis, cito dicas iniquitates tuas ut justificeris, nisi con-

vertaris . . . nisi scias te, inquit . . . et dicas 'Fusca sum et

decora (Cant. 1, 4) fusca sum, quia peccavi' . . . nihil tibi proderit

patrum gratia."51 It is doubtless passages such as these that Bauer

has in mind when after speaking of the place of the Delphic maximin Greek philosophy he says in his Das Christliche des Platonismus '^

"In welcher nahen Beziehung aber diess zum Christenthum steht,

zeigt an einfachsten und unmittelbarsten die Zusammenstellung des

delphischen Sokratischen Spriiche mit dem evangelischen Aufruf

zur neravola, jenen jjieravoelre das ja selbst nichts anderes ist als ein

verstarktes den Menschen nicht bios uberhaupt, sondern in Zustande

der Sunde in das Auge fassende yv&di aavrov. Sokratische Philosophie

und Christenthum verhalten sich dennoch, in diesen ihren Aus-

gangspunkt betrachtet zu einander wie Selbstserkenntniss und

Sunder-erkenntniss." A recognition of our sinful nature, together

with a sense of the greatness of God, naturally leads to the Christian

47 LVI, 3. Cf. Ambrose In Ps. CXVIII, 16, 11: "hominem se esse cognovit

impar sibi bellum adversum spiritalia nequitiae in coelestibus. . ." Cf. also

Basil, Ep. CCIV, 4.

48III, 23.

49 In Ps. LXV, 14.

60 Strom. IV, 6, 27.

51 In Ps. CXVIII, II, 14. The wicked do not know themselves according

to Ambrose, De Excidio Hierosol. Ill, XVII, 28: "Sed hunc exitum sacrilegi

ferunt, aut prodito^es vel percussores parentum, qui verum patrem non agnove-

runt, nee sese cognoscunt." Cf. Augustine, Sermo XLVI, 18: "Haeretici . . .

ipsi non se norunt." See 37 also.

82Page 24.

98

grace of humility. Chrysostom says that the more we advance in

virtue, the more we make ourselves contrite, and that he who best

knows himself esteems himself to be nothing.53 So Augustine says:

"Tu, homo, cognosce quia es homo: tota humilitas tua ut cognoscas

te";54 and Theodoret says: "We know and measure ourselves in

truth, for we have learned from the beginning the humility of the

Apostles."55

As the idea that man is human was extended by the ecclesiastical

writers to mean 'know that you are sinful, and be humble,' so

the kindred thought of knowing that man is mortal came to mean* know that while you have a mortal body, your soul is immortal.

'

Irenaeus says that God may permit us to be mortal and die

that we may never become puffed up as if we had life from

ourselves, . . but may learn from experience that we have eternal

life from Him. "And was it not on this account," he asks, "that

God permitted our resolution into the dust of the earth that we

might be clearly instructed in every way and diligent in all things

for the future, ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?"56 AndBasil says in his Homily on Epocrexe Seaurw: "Know thine own

nature; that thy body is mortal, thy soul immortal, and that thylife is somehow two-fold thine own life after the flesh which swiftly

passeth, and the inborn life of the soul which knoweth no bounds." 57

Eusebius would find a basis for this im lortality in the conception

that man is made in the image of the immortal God, for he says58

that Plato and Moses agree about the soul, in that Moses defined

the substance of the soul as immortal when he taught that man was

made after God's image; "and Plato," he explains, "as if he had

been a disciple of Moses, says in the Alcibiades I: 'Looking to God.... and into the virtue of the human soul, we would see and know

63 In Matt. XXV, 4. Pat. Grace, vol. LVII, p. 332.64 In John XXV, 16. Cf. Sermo LXVII, 9: humiles erant, non superbi

. . . se agnoscebant. . . . Also Sermo CCXC, 1, where he says of John the

Baptist: "quod bonum erat ei, se agnovit, ut ad pedes Domini . . . humilia-

retur."

**Ep. LXXXVI. Cf. De Prov. V.68 Irenaeus Adv. Her. V, 23.

67 Sec. 3.

68Praep. Evangelica XI, 34 where he says that man shall know the exper-

iences that belong to God, by having become immortal. Augustine, however,

says we do not know the origin of the soul that i t is a gift from God, but not of

the same nature as God Himself. De Anima et Origine IV, 3.

99

ourselves best.'"59

Something of this sense of man's birthright

seems to have been felt previously by Tertullian in a passage in his

Apolegeticum, although Tertullian taught the resurrection of the bodyas well as the immortality of the soul. The renewal of day and night,

and of the seasons, and of the fruits of the earth, are all emblems of

the resurrection, he says, and then he addresses the reader:60 "Tuhomo, tantum nomen, si intelligas te vel de titulo Pythiae discens,

dominus omnium morientium et resurgentium, ad hoc morieris ut

pereas?" The mission of Christ, according to Tertullian, was not

to make the soul know itself, for it did not lack knowledge of its

author and judge, and of its own condition, but to make the soul safe

by a knowledge of the resurrection with the flesh, which it could

not know until it was manifested in Christ's resurrection.61

In these few ideas, then, knowing that we are created by Godin His image, knowing that we are sinners in need of repentance,

and knowing that we are immortal lie the chief connotations62 of

self-knowledge which are to be found in the works of the Church

Fathers for the most part, rather than among non-Christian writers.

Yet the difference was, after all, largely a matter of emphasis and

direction. The essential divinity of the soul and a kind of immor-

tality were a part of the faith of Plato and of some of the later philo-

sophical schools, and the sinfulness of the flesh found recognition

in the asceticism of the Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists, as well

as in the indifference accorded to carnal desires by the Stoics. Wewould not in any way belittle the claims of the Hebrew Scriptures or

the teachings of Christ and his Apostles; but as touching this parti-

cular theme of self-knowledge, it seems evident that, however much

priority over the Delphic maxim the Church Fathers may have

felt disposed to attribute to Moses' Hpoo-exe Seaurw and the verse

in the Song of Songs, they owed the greater part of their thought,

even if somewhat indirectly, to the yv&Qi awrw on Apollo's temple.

89 See. p. 61 and n. 10.

60 Chap. 48.

61 De Came Christi 12: "Sed adeo non ignorat ut auctorem et arbitrum et

statum suum norit. . . . Nunc autem non effigiem suam didicit a Christo,

sed salutem. . . . Ignoravimus plane resurrecturam cum carne. Hoc erit

quod Christus manifestavit."

62Augustine discusses the soul's knowledge of itself more or less in his De

Trinitate IX & X. In X, 12 he says in effect that the precept "Know Thyself"

means 'Know 'and 'self, 'and so by the very act by which the mind understands

the words, it knows itself.

PASSAGES IN WHICH THE PRESENCE OF THE MAXIM is MADE EXPLICIT, WHETHER

BY THE EXACT WORDS Tv&6i Zavrdv, OR BY AN ALLUSION TO DELPHI, APOLLO,

OR THE WISE MEN

In Greek Authors

Aeschylus: Prometheus 309 (yiyvuaKe <raur6j')

Ion: Frag. 55 ed. NauckPlato: Charmides 164E

Phaedrus 229E

Philebus48C

Protagoras 343A-B

Laws 923AAlcibiades I 124A, 129A, 130E, 132D

Erastae 138A

Hipparchus 228E

Isocrates: Panathenaicus 230

Xenophon: Cyropaedia VII, 2, 20

Memorabilia IV, 2, 24

Aristotle: Rhetoric II, 21, 13

Magna Moralia II, 15, 1213a, 14

Philemon: Frag. 152 ed. Koch (Stob. Flor. 22, 4)

Menander: Frag. 240, 249, 307, 538 ed. KochDemetrius (?) : On Style 9

Diodorus Siculus: Hist. IX, 10

Philo Judaeus: De'

ug. et In. 46

De Spec. Leg. I (De Monarchia) 44

De Somn. I, 57 ff.

Legatio ad Gaium 69

De Mig. Ab. 8 (yivua-Ke atavrbv)

Dio Chyrsostom: IV, 160 R; X, 303 R; LXVII, 361 REpictetus: I, 18, 17; III, 1, 18; III, 22, 53

Frag. I. Ed. Schenkl. (From Stob. Flor. 80:14)

Plutarch: Ad. Colotem c. 20

Cons, ad Apoll. c. 28

De Dis. Adul. ab AM. c. 1 & 25

De Garrulitate, c. 17

Demosthenes, c. 3

De Inim. Utilitate c. 5

De Pyth. Or. c. 29

De Tranq. An. c. 13

E apud Delphos c. 2 & 17

Lucian: On Pantomime 81

Aristeides : Art of Rhetoric A' 483

Pausarnas: Des. Grace. X, 24, 1

Galen: De Prop. An. Cuius. Aff. Dign. et Cur. c. II (vol. V, p. 4 ed. Kuhn)Clement of Alexandria: Strom. I, 14, 60; II, 15, 70-71; V, 4, 23; VII, 3, 20

"KNOW THYSELF" IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 101

Hippolytus: Adv. Her. I, 18; X, 34

Origen: In Cant. Cant. 56B

Sextus Empiricus: Ilpds A.OJIKOVS A, 266

Diogenes Laertius: De Vit. Phil. I, 1, 13

Philostratus: Life of Apollonius of Tyana VII, 14, 137

Plotinus: Ennead IV, III, 1 & Ennead VI, VIII, 41

Porphyry: Frag, on !><S0i Saimiv (Stob. Flor. 21, 26-28)

Athanasius: Frag. In Cant. Cant. (Pat. Graec. vol. 27, p. 1348)

Libanius: Or. XII, 11

Julian: Epistle 41, 420B

Epistle to Themistius 260C

Oration VI, 185A & 188A-C

Oration VII, 211B-C

Proclus: In Alcibiades I vol. I, p. 5 ed. Creuzer

Cyril of Alexandria: Contra Julianum VI, 20IB

Hierocles: On the Golden Sayings of the Pythagoreans, p. 64 & 65 ed. Mullach.

Damascius Successor: Dubitationes et Solutiones F 96 V, p. 156 ed. Ruelle

Choricius of Gaza: Epitaphius for Procopius, p. 16 ed. Boiss.

Stobaeus: Flor. Ill, 79; XXIGregory of Pisida: Hexaemeron 633

Palatine Anthology IX, 366; IX, 349; Appendix IV, 48

Scholiasts on Iliad III, 53 vol. Ill, ed. Dindorf & vol. V, ed. Maass;

Pindar, Pythian II, 34 & III, 60; Plato's Phaedrus 229E; Republic 600A;Dio Chrysostom LXXII 386 R; Lucian's Phalaris I, 7

Hesychius no. 38

Suidas 839 C, 831A, & on Thales

In Latin Authors

Varro: Sat. Menipp. FNOei SATTONCicero: De Finibus III, 22; V, 44

De Legibus I, 22 (58-60)

Ep. ad Fratrem Quintum III, 6, 7

Tusc. Dis. I, 52; V, 70

Ovid: Ars Amatoria II, 500-502

Seneca: De Consolatione XI, 2-5

Ep. Mor. 94:28

Pliny: Nat. Hist. VII, 32

Juvenal: XI, 27

Tertullian: Apolegeticum 48

De Anima XVIIAusonius: De Herediolo 19

Ludus Septem Sap. Solon 1-3 & Chilon 138

Hieronymus: Epistle LVII, 12

Ambrose: In Ps. CXVIII, II, 13

Hexaemeron VI, VI, 39

Augustine: De Trinitate X, 9 (12)

102

Macrobius: Comm. in Somn. Scip. I, 9, 2

Sat. I, 6, 6

Sidonius: Carmina II, 163; XV, 50

PASSAGES IN WHICH THE PRESENCE OF THE MAXIM is APPARENT, THOUGH MOREOR LESS INDIRECTLY EXPRESSED

In Greek Authors

Heracleitus: Frag 116, Diels

Pindar: Pythian II, 34

Plato: Timaeus 72APhilebus 19C

Xenophon: Hellenica II, IV, 40-41

Memorabilia III, VII, 9; III, IX, 6

Aristophanes: Clouds 842

Aristotle: Nic. Ethics IV, 9, 1125a. 22

Eud. Ethics IV, 9, 1169b. 33

Philemon: Frag. 213 ed. KochPhilo Judaeus: De Mig. Ab. 185 & 195

De Spec. Leg. I (De Circumcision) 10; De Sac. 262-265

De Somn. I, 212

Leg. Allegor. I, 91-92

Epictetus II, 8, 10-13; 14, 18-20

Plutarch: Septem Sap. Con. c. 21

Quo modo ad. poet. aud. deb. c. 11

Lucian: Dialogues of the Dead XIV, 6

Diogenes Laertius: De Vit. Phil. I, 9, 35

Philostratus: Life of Apollonius of Tyana III, 18; IV, 44; VI, 35

Lives of the Sophists IV, 525

Plotinus: Ennead V, III, 3 ff.; VI, IX, 6

Prophyry: Letter to Marcella 32

Frag, in Stob. Flor. I, 88

De Abstinentia 3, 27

lamblichus: Life of Pythagoras XVIII, 83

Frag, in Stob. Flor. 81, 18

Julian: Or. VII, 225DNemesius: Nature of Man I, 16

Proclus: In Ale. I passim, esp. pp. 85 & 277, vol. I ed. Creuzer

Institituo Theologica, esp. LXXXIII, CLXVII, & CLXXXVIOlympiodorus : In Ale. I passim, esp. pp. 4, 7-8 & 10, vol. II, ed. Creuzer

Golden Sayings of the Pythagoreans, 14-15

Hierocles: On the Golden Sayings of the Pythagoreans, p. 157 ed. Mullach.

Stobaeus: Flor. Chapter XXI; and CVIII, 81

In Latin Authors

Plautus: Pseudolus 972-973

Stichus 124-125

Cicero: De Officiis I, 31 (114)

IN GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE 103

De Oratore III, 33

Phillipics II, 68

Horace: Satires I, 3, 22

Seneca: De Beneficiis VI, 30, 5

De Ira II, 36, 1

De Tranq. An. VI, 2-3

De Vita Beata 27, 4-6

Ep. Mor. Ill, 7, 10

Persius: Satire IV, esp. vv. 23-24

Martial: X, IV, 10-12

Apuleius: De Dog. Plat. II, 16

FURTHER PASSAGES TOUCHING SELF-KNOWLEDGE IN THE CHURCH FATHERS

In Greek Ecclesiastical Writers

Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. II, 7, 2; 17, 5 & 8; V, 2, 3

Clement of Alexandria: Strom. IV, 6, 27

Origen: Comm. In Joan. XXXII, 18

Gregory Thaumaturgus: In Origenem Or. Panegyr. XIEusebius: Praep. Evangel. XI, 27, 5

Basil : Homily on Ilpocrexe Seaur<

Hexaemeron IX, 6

De Hominis Structura I, 1

Sermo XX, 2 (Appendix)

Ep. CCIV, 4

Epiphanius: XXXVI, 264C; LXXIV, 4, 10; LXXVI, 11

Gregory of Nyssa: In Cant. Cant. II, p. 806; III, p. 810 (vol. 44)

Chrysostom: Homily on Matthew XXV, 4

Cyril of Alexandria: In Cant. Cant. 1, 7

Theodoret: De Nat. Horn. 39

Ep. LXXXVIDionysius Areopagiticus : De Div. Nom. VII, 469C & 470A

De Eccles. Hierarch. II, III, 4

In Latin Ecclesiastical Writers

Minucius Felix: Octavius 17

Tertullian: De Carne Christi, 12

Arnobius: Adv. Nationes II, 16 & 74

Lactantius: Epit Div. Inst. LXHilary of Potiers: De Trinitate XII, 53

Ambrose: De Is. et An. I, IV, 15-16; I, VIII, 64

De Excessu Frat. Satyri I, 45

De Excid. Hierosol. Ill, 17, 28

De Fide. V, 19, 237

De Jos. Pat. I, IV, 20

Hexaemeron VI, 2, 3; VI, VI, 42; VI, VIII, 50

In Ps. CXVIII, III, 30; X, 10; XIII, 20; XVI, 11

Ep. I, II, 8; XVII, 7

104

Augustine: Confession X, V, 7

Soliloquies II, 1

De Civ. Dei, VIII, 10-12

De An. et Origine IV, Chap. 2-21

De Trinitate I, 12; IX, 3-X, 9; XIV, 5-14; XV, 3, 6, 7, 13

In John XXV, 16; XXXII, 5; LXVI, 1; XC, 1

In Ps. LXV, 14; XCIC, 11; C, 8

Sermo XXV, 4; LXVI, 18, 27, 36-37; XLVII, 23; LVI, 3; LVIII,

13; LXVIII, 9; CXXXVIII, 8; CCXC, 1; CCXCII, 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

E. Barker: The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York, 1906.

Baur: Das Christliche des Platonismus. Tubingen, 1837.

A. W. Benn: The Greek Philosophers. London, 1914.

C. Bigg: The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Oxford, 1886.

The Origins of Christianity. Oxford, 1909.

F. A. Bohren: De Septem Sapientibus. Bonn, 1867.

G. S. Brett: A History of Psychology. London, 1912.

J. Burnet: The Ethics of Aristotle. London, 1904.

Greek Philosophy. London, 1914.

J. Connington: The Satires of A. Persius Flaccus. Oxford, 1893.

F. W. Farrar: Lives of the Fathers. London, 1907.

G. P. Fisher: History of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1896.

J. G. Frazer: Pausanias's Description of Greece, vol. V. London, 1898.

B. L. Gildersleeve : The Satires of Persius. New York, 1875.

Pindar, The Olympian and Pythian Odes, New York, 1890

K. W. Goettling: Abhandlungen. Miinchen & Halle, 1851-1863.

T. Gomperz: Greek Thinkers. New York, 1905.

G. Grote: Plato. London, 1888.

W. A. Heidel: Pseudo-Platonica. Baltimore, 1896.

H. Hitzig: Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio, vol. Ill, pt. II. Leipzig, 1910.

B. Jowett: The Dialogues of Plato Translated. New York, 1892.

S. Karsten: De Effatis Delphicis wfev ayav et yv&di atavrbv. In SymbolaeLitterariae vol. II, p. 57 ff.

O. Lagercrantz :Das E zu Delphi. Hermes XXXVI (1901) pp. 411 ff.

E. B. Mayor: Thirteen Satires of Juvenal. London, 1880.

J. H. Middleton: The Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Journal of Hellenic Studies,vol. IX, p. 282 ff.

R. L. Nettleship: Lectures on the Republic of Plato. London, 1906.

W. H. Roscher: Die Bedeutung des E zu Delphi und die iibrigen ypannara.

AeX^ucA. Philologus LIX, pp. 21 ff.

Neue Beitrage zur Deutung des Delphischen E. Hermes XXXVI,pp. 470 ff.

Weiteres iiber die Bedeutung des E zu Delphi und die iibrigen

yp6.lj.IJLa.Ta AeXcpi/ca. Philologus LX, pp. 81 ff.

J. E. Sandys: The Rhetoric of Aristotle with a Commentary by E. M. Cope.

Cambridge, 1877.

L. Schmidt: Ethik der Alten Griechen, vol. II. Berlin, 1882.

F. Schultz: Die Spruche der delphischen Saule. Philologus XXIV, pp. 193 ff.

P. Shorey. The Unity of Plato's Thought. Chicago, 1903.

Aristotle's De Anima. A. J. of Ph. vol. XXII, pp. 154 ff.

G. Stalbaum: Platonis Omnia Opera. London, 1858.

H. O. Taylor: Ancient Ideals. New York, 1900.

T. Whittaker: The Neo-Platonists. Cambridge, 1901.

E. Zeller: Die Philosophic der Griechen. Leipzig, 1892.

a3cd

b*3*

J

University of Toronto

Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket

LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED